IJC^g^^^j^lSsSsS^dfe
R E M A R
O N
The Christian Minister's Reasons for adminillring Baptism by Sprinkling or Pouring of Water.
^^^p^^ap^^^psp^s^^^^p^p^^^^^^p^^
3C3
REMARKS
O N
The Christian Minis te r*s Reasons for adminiftring Baptism by Sprinkling or Pouring of Water:
I N A Series of Letters to a Friend.
By SAMUEL^ STENNETT, D. D.
No'w I praife you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the or di fiances, as I delivered them to you. I Cor. xi. 2.
LONDON:
Printed for George Keith, in Gracechurch- Street; James Buckland, in Pater-nofter- Rowj and John Robinson, at Shad-Thames,
<C>? MDCCLXXII,
.T„v
^*1^
I
C y ]
THE
CONTENTS,
|
'^r |
LETTER |
L |
|
|
JL NtroduSiory Retnarks. |
Paget |
||
|
LETTER |
IL |
||
|
The, |
Nature and Intent of Chrifiian Baptlfm. |
13 |
|
|
LETTER |
IIL |
Groundlefs Prefujnptlons agalnji the Practice of Immerfion. 22
LETTER IV.
The meaning of the word Baptize. 39
LETTER V.
The Baptifms of the JewSy our Saviour, and the Eunuchs 62
A LET.
L E T T E R VI.
Scriptural Allufwm to Immerfion, 5_5
LETTER VII.
Baptifms fuppofed to have been admmlftered by JJperfion, JO J
LETTER VIIL Pajfages fuppofed to allude to Afperfion^ 1 18
L E T T E R IX.
Conchfton, 135
ERRATUM. "Page 144, tins lafly for in read itom.
PRE-
[ vii ]
PREFACE.
F'^x)sC"^ H E following: fheets contain M )tiC I'^i^^^rk^ upon that part only k)^)^JM{ Qf ]y[p^ Addington's work, which refpeds the Mode of Baptifm: whether the publick will be troubled with any ftridures on the latter part of it, which treats of the SuhjeBs of .Baptifm, is uncertain. This method, however, ®f ^ replying to the former queftion firft, was deemed moft pro- A 2 per.
viii PREFACE.
per, not only as the two points are of diftind confideration, but as it was apprehended the length of the re- marks, in the other method, would render them tedious to the Reader, and occafion perhaps a curfory at- tention to them. And yet there is, it muft be confefled, even in the prefent attempt, an appearance of pro- lixity which very naturally demands an apology. For who would expeft that any fuch doubts fliould arife refpedling the mode of a pofitive in- ftitution, as would require the dif- quifition of upwards of a hundred pages ? efpecially confidering the ge- nerally acknowledged limplicity of the Chriflian difpcnfation, and the in- finite wifdom and goodnefs of its great Founder and Legiflator. The
truth
PREFACE. ix
truth is, our Mafler hath conveyed his will to us ill the clearefl: terms, and his own practice and that of liis Apoftles exadly corrcfpond therewith : fo that the evidence in favour of irn- merfion, is level to the plained under- ftanding, and may be brought within the compafs of two or three pages, as the Reader will fee hath been at- tempted at the clofe of this piece. It is not therefore the intricacy of the queftion itfelf, but the doubtful light in which fome may perhaps think Mr. Addington hath placed it, that has occafioned the length of thefe re- marks. Wherefore his ingenuity in the mangement of the argument will, I hope, apologize for my prolixi- ty-
If
X PREFACE.
If it be aflced of what confequence it is whether much or Httle water is ufed in Baptifm ? I anfwer, the quan- tity is perfedly indifferent, provided there be enoug-h to conftitute the ce- remony Baptifn. As therefore the Baptifts are clearly of opinion, that fprinkling or pouring of water upon a perfon is not baptizing him, they wifii to be confidered, while pleading ibr immerfion, as contending not for a particular mode of Baptifm, but for Baptifm itfelf. And this being the cafe, they cannot look upon the que- ftion in debate as indifferent or of lit- tle importance, without admitting a principle of very injurious confequence in matters of religion, I mean a right of annihilating, or at leaft mutilating and changing, a pofitive inftitution. 1 . This
P R E F A C E. xi
This I am fatisfied will be confidered^ by every fober and candid man, as a fufficient excufe for what might other- wife be deemed an undue attachment to forms.
And yet, perfuaded as the Baptifts are that, while pleading for immerfion, they are pleading for the very exift- ence of a pofitive inftitution, it is poffible their zeal may exceed. This i-s the cafe when an undue flrefs is laid upon Baptifm, and when it is defended in an improper manner. Now it is certain that they lay un undue ftrefs upon this facred rite, who maintain that it is neceffary to falvation, or place it in the fame point of view with a moral precept. Bat, if there are any Baptiiis who do this, I pro- A X feii
xii PREFACE.
fcfs I do not know them. It is noto- rious that, as a body, they utterly dif- clahii fuch dangerous opinions. Nay> the making Baptifm a faving ordinance is totally inconfiftent with the grand principle upon which they exclude in- fants from a right to it; I mean the ne- ceffity of a profeffion of faith in Chrift, and of a perfon's giving fome credible proof that he is a New Creature. To whi^h I will add, that this miftaken notion of its importance feems to have been the true caufe of thofe cor- ruptions both as to the mode and the JiihjcQs. of the inftitution, which the Baptifis fo much lament, and fo ear- neltly wifli to reform. The Clinici, that is, perfons confined to their beds by Rcknef?, apprehending that they could not be faved without being
bap-
P R E F A C E. xili
baptized, were eager to be admitted to B^ptiiin. But, not being in cir- cu'mftances capable of immerlion, Iprinkling or pouring of water came to be admitted as a kind of fucceda- neum in the room of it» And how this reafoning operated in regard alfo of the admiffion of infants to Baptifp, I think any one may eafily perceive, The£b things confidered, it will furely be acknowledged, that the Baptifts, of all people, are the leaft to be fuf- pedled of laying any fuch ftrefs upon this ordinance as is prejudicial to the interefls of real perfonal religion. If, however, an attempt to reduce Baptifm to its original fimplicity, and to confine it to thofe only who are properly qualified for it, be deemed criminal, or an objeil difproportioned
to
XIV P R E F A C E,
to the zeal exprefled about it; 1 fear the laudable endeavours of Proteftants in general, to refcue the other pofitive inftitution of Chrifl from the innova- tion of Romanifts, will fall under the fame cenfure.
But we are often told, that the fre- quent and large publications of the Baptifts upon this fubjetfl, and their zealous endeavours to profclyte others- to their opinion, furnilli too plain a proof that they hold this tenet of theirs in a point of light much more important than it deferves. Before,. however, fo unfavourable, a conclufioii is drawn from thefe fadls, the fafbs themfelves ought furely to be very clearly eftablifhed. As to the books that have been written upon this ar- gument.
PREFACE. XV
gument, whoever inquires into the hiftory of the controverfy Vv'ill find, that moft of the produdlions from the pens of Baptifts are anfwers to the writings of Pcrdobaptifls : fo that they are fcarce ever to be confidered as aggreflbrs. And as to their en- deavours to profelyte others to their opinion, there may, I acknowledge, have been weak and raiTi attempts of this fort, which it v^'ould be a folly to excufe. I can, however, freely declare for myfelf (and I believe moft of my brethren can fay the fame) that it affords me infinitely greater joy to hear, that a man is become a iincere «difciple of Chrift, than that in a frenzy of party-zeal he has thrown down the gauntlet, and declared himfelf a Champion in the caufe of Baptifm.
Nor
xvi PREFACE.
Nor do I love a fellow Chriftian, who confcientioufly differs from me in this point, a whit lefs than one who has been immerfed in Jordan itfelf. But ftill, .an allowance fhould be made, and I am perfaaded will by all who have any acquaintance with human nature, for the effed: which a clear conviction of the truth, and a defire that others may be convinced of it, hath upon an honeft mind.
As to the manner in which this controverfy has been conducted, I am afraid both parties have fometimes failed, in regard of that meeknefs and charity which the gofpel teaches., if not that good-nature and decorum which the laws of humanity demand* Such, it has often been obferved, is
the
PREFACE, xvii
the unhappy fate of very many reli- gious difputes. But, wherever the fault lies, I mod heartily agree v^ith all good men in lamenting, not ex- cufing it. Intemperate heat will na- turally enough precipitate a bigot (and fuch there are among all de- nominations of Chriflians) into thefe fliameful miftakes. But how ftrange is it that they who mean well, how- ever miftaken, fliould » fuffer them- felves to be put out of humour by the weaknefs of their own arguments ! A fenfible obferver will, in fuch a cafe, give a flirewd guefs where the truth lies, without entering into the debate. It ill becomes me, I own, confidently to determine on Vv^hich fide the weight of this prefumptive kind of evidence, in the difpute about
5 ^^P^
xvlii PREFACE.
Baptifm, preponderates. If, however, the Bap tills are chargeable with any degree of that guilt, I hope it will receive no addition to it from this attempt.
Befides the many confiderations which the gofpel fuggeftvS, to guard me againft undue warmth, there is one which ought to have a peculiar effed: on 7ny^ mind, and that is the example of a much honoured Anceflor, who has not only done fingular juftice to the argument itfelf, but, in the management of it, has flievv^n a noble fuperiority to the rudeft and mofl in- decent invedlives, that were perhaps ever thrown out againft any fet of men profeffing Chriftianity. I mean not by this to infmuate, that the book to
which
PREFACE. XIX
which I reply bears a refemblance to that. No. The ingenious Author is a man of a very different caft from Mr. RuffenM his language is decent, his manner pleafing, and his profef- fions candid and impartial. And I ihould ftrangely forget myfelf, if I did not hold his charader, as a Gentle- man, a Scholar, and a Minifler, in all due refpeft. Yet, if it fhould be found that expreffions have dropt from Mr. Addington's pen, that may draw upon a body of people refledions of a very ignominious kind, he will not i<^ think it ftrange that an Apologift fhould feel pain on their behalf. Groundlefs as thofe reflections are, I forbear to mention them here, as I mean to appeal to the judgment of the Reader, not to his paffions. If, 5 how-
XX P R E F A C E.
however, in the courfe of thefe Re- marks, I {hould at any time have been fo unhappy as to exprefs myfelf with too much warmth, I hope it will be forgiven me; and that an error of this fort will not be conftrued into a defign of fixing the imputation of a malignant intention en the Author to whom I reply.
LEI'
LETTER I,
Dear SiR^ ^
jr^J^^TM^T your reqtieft, I fend yoH fome ^ A ^ general remarks on a performance *S 1?^ °^ ^^' -^^di^g^^^^^-i on the long
]HL^){(^^ controverted fubjed of Baptlfm. A piece vvhich has indeed been fome time publifti- ed, but did not till lately fall into my hands. The idea I had formed of the Author, as a fen- fible as well as pious man, his profeflions of wi' pariialUy'm the dedication, and the account he there gives of the refult of hi^ inquiry, that it was ^* abundantly fatisfa£tory to him,"*' led me to apprehend that he had fomething to fay upoa the fubjecSl: which I had not confidered, or how* ever hot fo deliberately as he had done ; fo that I expelled to ilnd the argument on his fide of the queftion, placed in a new, if not -a more convincing, point of light. B-ut, upon looking into the i)Ook:, I found the matter quite other- - ^-'^ B wife J
2u ■ IntrodiiSfory Remarks, ,>/ '"\
.#vire ; and the farther I proceed in k particular Jlnd accurate examination of it, the more I am convinced that my apprehenfion was ill founded. J fliould indeed have been glad, if his reafoning, though 'falfe, had not been fo-loofe, unt^onnec^- ■ed, and defultory ; as in that cafe I fhould have been at lefs pain in following him, and you ivould have lefs trouble in perufmg my remarks.
You will not. Sir, I am fure, charge me with teing uncandid, when I fay, that Mr. y/.'s fenfe of the motto affixed to his title, is do b^ explain- ed by the title, it-felf.that precedes it : and confc*- <quently that he would have^us confider the pro- phet, when he fays, He fiall fprinkle many yiations^ as meaning that Cbrift: fliould, either himfelf, or by bis minifters, baptiz^e infants by fprinkling or pouring of vyajter la^on them. I aip aware i indeed that mottos are <?ft.en ehofen in a way of accom- modation ; byt, as moil jeaders . will be apt tp underftand him as I have done, I cannot think Mr. A. if he had not wifhed them to confider the paiTage as referring to Baptifm, would have thrown fuch a fnare in their way. And yet I know not how to perfuade myfelf that h? does really believe this to b.e the fenfe of the t€xt. If it be clearly che fenfe ©fit, ;all pccafion pf .hfp afterTlabors is manifeflily precluded.s ^nd a;man need go no far- ther than the title for.a fatisfaiSlory proof of the point our Author wouJW ijoaiAtain. . Nay,,!ijfvlhis I a inter-
Inirodu6lory Remarks, 3
rhtcrpretation of the palTage be admitted, the jie^t claufe of the verfe, feme will perhaps fay, may with as good reafon be referred to Baptifin alfo. The plain meaning is, that his dodrihe Should defcend like rain upon many nations and people, and with fuch evidence and con- vidlion, that even kings fhould be ftruck dumb^ and have 'nothing to reply. And what, I be- feech you. Sir, has this to do with Baptifm f Thus unhappy has Mr. J. been in the choice 'of his motto ! And if this be the *' firft reafon" he has to offer in favor of hisf opinion, I cannot but; ^h'lnk the confiderate reader will be apt to fuf- pe£V,' that thof^. v/Viich follow may not, all of] them, be perfectly •couclufive.
• ■ As profelTions of candor, modefty, and impar- tiality, have frequently an undue kifluence on f<5fiit kind of readers, and as I have myfelf felt the force of them with refpecSt to Mr. J, ; it may not'bfe'amirs to.-tnake a few remarks an his "De- ** clicatioh" and '* Advertifement." He informs his people, that " previous to his inquiry into *< the fcriptiire do<irine of^ Chriftian Baptifm, he " endeavoured to divefl him'felf of every preju- '* dice, and determined to follow the truth '^ whither foever it might lead him (a)" A noble rcfolution this ! A refolution in which I mofl:
r^; Page 3.
JB 2 heartily
4 Inlrodu5lory Remarks,
litartiiy wiili he may be followed by every in- quirer into the matter now in debate. But, I acknowledge. Sir, it not a little furprifes me to hear him declare afterwards, in fuch llrong terms, t1iat the refult of this his inquiry was '^ abun- *'* dantly fatisfadory to him f and that " the •* reafons for his pra6lice appear to him now in ** a much ftronger light than before 3 and that ** he is more fully convinced than €ver, that the " rpecious objedlions which are thrown out *' againft it, have no folid foundation in reafofi, ^^ or the word of God {h).^^ I fhall only obferve here, that it will appear from many conceflions which I fhall cite in the fequel, that the efte£l of fuch inquiry has been very different with re- fpedl to fome of the wifcft and moft learned men, that this or any other country have produced ; and who, notwithftanding, have continued in the fame pradlice with our Author. One inftance, however, I cannot help mentioning in this place : ,it is of Bp. Taylor^ whofe learning and piety will not allow us to queftion his having taken great pains to inveftigate this fubje£l, and his having endeavoured, like Mr. A.^ to diveft himfelf of every prejudice. He fays, upon fumming up the whole, that there is much more truth than evidence on hisfidci that is, on the fide of the Pcedobap- tifts (c).
(b) Page 4. (4) Liberty of Prophefying, § x8. edit. An. X647,
As
InirodiiUory Remarks, 5-
As Mr. A. has thus, entered upon his inquiry without prejudice, {o he tells us he has profe- cutcd it with deliberation. *' He hath not wrif* " ten in hafte. He hath endeavoured to enter *' into the true meaning of fuch pafiages as re- '* Lite to Baptifm, and halh explained them in a *< fcnfe that appears to him (upon the mntureft *' confideration) moft confiftent and fcriptu^ " ral (d)" Whether he has fiicceeded, we fliall quickly fee. But I cannot help fearing, from the fpecimen he has given us in the title- page,, that his confideration of other paffages may have been rather hajiy^ than ?72aiurcv,T\6: delr- bcrate.
His reafons for this publication, fo far as h'e has thought fit to difclofe them, I think none can difapprove, viz. " To gratify the defire of his " people, who wijfhed to have the reafons of " their conduct explained in public/* But,^ confideilng the reputation in which Infant Bap- tifiYi \s generally held, it was rather fuperfluous- to itdd, *' that he might not feeni aftiamedof any ** do(5iiine or duty taught in the eternal oracl(?s of truth (e),'* As for " thofe reafons, which ia ^ rendernefs to others, he chufes to fupprefs " here ;" he hath only left me at liberty toguefs- what they are (f), I therefore conjedure (the* how the matter is i know not) that fome Bap-
(dl Page 4, 5. (e) Page 4, 5. (f) Page 5.
B 3. tifl3
6 JntrodiiElory Remarks.
lifts in Mr.^.'s neighbourhood have lately been defending their principles; and, I hope, from the fan-ie motive with him, *' that they might not *' fcem afhamed of what they believe to be their ** duty," and which too many treat not only with indifference, but contempt. This may per- haps have put his people upon the inquiry. And if that fhould prove to be the cafe, I really think he fhould, in tendernefs to his people, have ra- ther prudently fupprefled his reafom for Infant- Bapiifm^ than, in tendernefs to the Baptifts, have thus fupprefTed his renfons for puhlijhi?jg thofe rea- .ibns. But be Mr- A.'s private reafons what they may, if the interefts of truth are promoted by his publication, all wife and good men of every de- nomination will, I hope, rejoice. You will al- low me, Sir, now I am fpeaking of Mr. t^.'s ten- dernefs to his Baptift-neighbours, to exprefs my ivifhes that, for his own fake, his tendernefs had extended a little farther^ and that, as he has afuired us, '* he hath not written with a defign , *' to offend," he had tenderly fupprejjed a long note he hath inferred towards the clofe of his- book, in order (1 hope I am not uncharitable in i'ay'iHg it) to give his reader an unfavourable idea of the origin of the Bapt. fts. This furely is not very candid. It is acting, fome will be apt to think, too much like thpie whom our author himfelf ililesj iUrncu.ured retailers of hackney d ob-
ferva^
hitrodu5fory Remarks. 7
fervaiiofts. The confideration of the note Itfelf I (hall refer to its proper place.
in his Advertifement, which follows the Dedi- cation, Mr. vf. tells us, -that " theenfuing trea- *V life is intended not fo much to amufeas to in- ** ftru6t." How it may have been with others I know not ; but as to me, the effe{5i, I acknow- , lodge, has been the diredl contrary to what th«- Aut!ht)r intended : I am unuch more amufed than inJiru^ecL This, however, being the cafe, I am in the lefs .danger of feeling any the leaft provo- cation he may have given to '' an angry conten- ** tious fpirir,'-' which he aiTut-es us in the next rentence, and I am candidly difpofcd to beJievCr was by no means his intention. Indeed, Sir, the reading h.is book is fo far from having any fuch effect upon me, that i verily Iw^iieve, if \ had taljien it up iri an ill humour (which 1 am not at sil}. confeious I did) the amufement his'miftaken rcafoning has afforded me, would have quickly put me into a good temper. As to what folkl^vs, that his intention was *^ to promote a pradHcal *' regard to a divine infiitution ;*' I need not take pains to convince you j my friend, that this is my intention alio in making thefe remarks up- on his performance •, though I can by no means agree with him that Infant Baptiim is a divine invitation. His very ferious requeft to thofe o^ a contrary opinion to him, I feel myfclf perfect-
8 Introdu5lcry Remarks,
\y inclined to comply with ; and, having put the queftion he propofes, confcientioufly reply in his own words — That '* I am defirous to know *' and do the will of God in this matter." And, as I am not one of thofe ^* who refolutely detet*- *' mine to perfift in their opinion, in fpite of all *' evidence, and who turn the fcripture-dO(^fin6 ^' of Baptifm into mere matter of vain jangling" (a fufpicion which no candid author fliould ha- ilily admit concerning any of his readers) I have Mr. AJ's allowance *' to proceed ."^ The very proper directions he has given, as to the manner of confidering his treatife, I am perfuaded you approve J and h«pe. Sir, when you, afTiftcd by thofe directions, have weighed his reafons and Kiy remarks upon them, you will be difpofed " to *'' embrace," as Mr. J, well exprefierit, ** that '* opinion wbich appears to you, on mature <^ thought and impartial inquiry, beft fupported «' by found reafon, credible teftimony, and the *» word of God."
To his Advertifement-our Author has annexed a P. S. in which he has thrown out what he calls a prefumptive argument in favour of Infant Baptifm, and which his imagination feems to have fuggefted to him when he had finiflied his work. By a prefumptive argument here, I fup- pofe Mr. A. means an argument arifing out of the utility and fitnefe of Infant Baptifm, diftincSt
from
Introdu5Imy Rejnarks; g
from the confideration of its being a pofitive in- ftitution. The queftion, therefore, whether it is or it is not of divine authority, is here for a wioment to be held out of view. And now whae is Mr. J:s reafoningf It is this — " The birth *' of a child is an event of great importance to a *' family, and it muit appear a parent's duty, it '* cannot "but be a pious parent's inclination^ *■' early to devote his children to God through *'■ Chriftj exprcfTing his fervent defires that they "" may partake with himfelf, of the blefTings of *-' the chriiiian covenant." AM this, Sir, is very true, and 1 fuppofe there is no Baptift but would readily afTent to it. But what is Mr. yf.'s con- fequence ? '^' Therefore we feem to need fuch a ^' rite as this." If by need he means,, that we cnnnot devote our children to God through Chrift', orexprefs our fervent defires, &c. without fprink- ling them j and if that were a real fa£t, his rea- foning would be juftr. But I fuppofe his mean'- ing is, either that there is a peculiar fitnefs in thrs ceremony to exprefs our dedication- of them tb God ; or that, if it were omitted, moft people would- feel the want of fome fuch rite in its room. Now, as to the fitnefs of this cerem.ony to ex- prefs the dedication of our children to God, I acknowledge r cannot perceive it : or if I could, that argument would have juft the fame weight with me in favour of Infant Baptifm, that trie fitnefs of the crgfs in- Baptifm, to exprefs the- B 5 chai-
ro Untroduolcry Remarks.
character of a difciple of Chrift, would have with Mr. J. in favour of. that ceremony. And as la the general idea of mod peoptes apprehending fbme fuch ceremony to be wanting^ to children, it is a very fallacious kind of argument : it does not arife out of the reafon and nature of th© thing itfelf, but out of a prejudice confirmed by long and general cuflom. To reafon, tlicreforcy after this manner, is jufl the fame as if a Papiti were to fay, it is a ftrong prefumptive argument in favour of extreme unclion, that mod people Jee?n to 7ieed fuch a rits as this. The truth is, as Ml. A. well exprefTes it with regard to the Jews, " Having been taught a religious regard to an- •^^ cient ceremonies from their infancy, and hav- " ing performed them many years as divine " rites, they were unwilling intiiely to lay them *^ afide {-g)'' There are Tome Poedobaptifls, Sir, if I am not miftaken, who fpeak of bringing their children into covenant by Ea^tlfm. Now, if there were any iitnefs in the inilitutdoo to that €nd, I confefs there would be great need of fuch a rite. But Mr. A, has not thus exprefled him- felf in the paflage before us, '^r^^ therefore it is not my bufmefs to difcufs that point here.
And now, after what has been faid to inva* lidate our Author's prefumptive argument in favour i>f Infant Baptifm, would you expedl. Sir, to fee
<gy Page II'
Tntro'duilorf Remarks, xi
me confronted with tny own brethren ? Yet fucli- is my unhaippinefs F *' This argument," fays he, " appears to receive additional ilrength from the *"' pradice of cur Baptift brethren, (many of *' them at leaftj v^'ho, feeling the need, pro- *' priety, and ufefulnefs of fome fuch rite^s we *' fuppofe Infant Baptifm to be, have invented *' one of their own, which nearly refembles it^ *' excepting in the ceremonial part of it." I would not be too critical, Sir, but there feems tb me, I acknowledge, fomething odd in the con- ceit of" ^7 riie that refernhles cnoih^r rite^ excrpting /?«.• ■the ceremonial part of that rit-e. This founds a lit- tle like, a rite that has nothing of a rite in i^ But be that as it may, let us inquire how the matter (lands, I fuppofe Mr. J. refers to tha practice of fome pious parents among the Bap- tirts, who, upon the birth of a child, call in their chriftian friends,, to aflift them " in devoting- " (to ufe our Author's -own words above) their <•* children to God through Chrift ; and' in ex-^ *' prefling tlieir fervent defires that they may " partake,, with themfelves, of the blefTings of " the Chriftian covenant." 'Now what is there in all th^'s that gives the leaft countenance to Mr. yf.'s opinion of their Jleming to -tieecl fuch a rite as infant fprinkling ?• Whatever ref^mblance there may be betvv'een this pra£lice of theirs, and that of their Poedobaptifl brethren, he himfelf fa-ys that they do not conform to the c^rcmcnial B 6 ^avt I
iz Introdnftory Remarks,
part : and if they do not, what is this but a plaia declaration on their part thati they, do not need fuch ceremony? And if this, by his own confcilion, is the language of their pra6^ice, as well as their doctrine, how is it that by fuch pr^<5tice they add ftrength. to his argument r Befides, if there were any thing in this reafoning, our Author himfelf admits that this is not a general practlee among the Baptifts. And I hope thofe miniflers*, who think it their duty to aflift on thefe occa^ fions, do confcientioufly avoid (and I know It to be true of many of them) every thing that looks like eilabliiliing one rite in the room of another. I have only to obferve farther, that it is a little ilrange Mr. A, fhould call this pradice of theif.s a rite of their cwn, fince he cannot, but be fen>- fible that it is clearly warranted, by that general exhortation of the apoftle. In every thing by prayer and fuppU cation zvith thank/giving^ let your requejis he made known unto God.(h),.
. Thus, Sir, I have followed Mr. J, through his Dedication, Advertifement, and ^Poftfcript^,. and you may perhaps fhortly receive fome farther itmarks on the book itfelf, from. Sir,
Your humble Serv«ant,
(h) PhJl.'Iy. 6.
L E T-
[ i 3 J
LETTER ir.
'Dear S i r-,
OU R author dlvifcles his work into i^fs parts. In the firft, he confiders the mock 6r maiiner of adftiiniJirlngChrijiianBaptifTn', and ia the fecond, the fuhjc^s of it. We begin with the former, and fliall. at prefent confine our- felves to his firfl chapter, wherein he treat3 of the nature and perpetuity of Chrifiian Baptfrn^^ and the perfons by whom it is. to. he adminiflered. As we agree with him in the two laft points, refpecting the perpetuity of this ordinance, and the perfons appointed to adminifter it, our chief .bufmefs here will be to examine what he has to offer conceriiing the nature and intent of this
ii^ftitution (a)^
He
{a) Though Ipafs over what Mr. A. fa^s concerning the perpetuity of Chriftlan Baptilm,. it may not be sm!is to make a remark, in a note, upon the very proper anfwer he gives, page the fifth, to an objc^ion darted againft it. " Some, fays he,, have indeed fuppofed that Baptifm was ** adopted by Chrift, and- pradifed by his apollles, as, .a " temporary, accommodation to the genius aad cuftoius M of the Jews, who had been ufed to profelyte-baptifm ** and many other wafliings, in, and before tl^e time of
*• our
t4 ^^s Nature and Intent
He fets out with giving us our Saviour's com- miflion to his firft miniftcrs j and having obfcrved that " they accordingly adminiftered and recom- *' mended this ordinance, not for ihe putting *' away of the filth of the flefh, but the anfwer ** of a good confcience towards God ; and that ^' the apoille Paul fpeaks of baptized Chriftians- *' as havkig put on Chnfl, and as being all bap- *' tized into one body;'* he tells us, that " from- *' thefe and other fimilar reprefentations of "•' Chriftian Baptifm in the New Teftament, it "** feems an ordinance intended to fignify the fepara^ ** iion of the d'lfciples of Chr'ifl from an unhelievlrt^ •' and finful world , to be a peculiar people to the *' Lord\2.rA is to be Qon\\^Q':G(i ?.s an outward *' fp.al or token of the covenant of grace ^ and of God'' s^ '* receiving his people into thai covenant^ and bejhw' *' />;^ upon them all its invaluable bleffings (^)."
Now, in this account of the nature aTid intent ©f the inflitution, Mr. ^. confid&rs Baptifm either as having refpecl to the chara6ier or proFeIi]/(>n of the perfon baptized; or elfe merely as a fign
*' onr Saviour. But if fo, they would, more pi'obabiy, ** have confined it to Jew iil>. converts. Yet their Lord's- *^ command was to baptize all nations." From hence, it fliould feem,. he gives up the point refpeiSting profiilyte- baplifm among the Jews. Yet he introduces that ai;^u- ment towards the dole of the book, where 1. fliall fpealc more largely of it.
{I), P. I, z.
of Cbrfjlim Bapiifm, i-J-
or token of the truths tbenifclvcs cxprefTcd in hi* <3efinition, and without any reference of them at all to the perfons baptized. It is indeed diffi- cult to afcertain his precife meaning: that we may not, however, miftake him; we wi'il exa- mine his reafoning in- each of tliefe views.
I. If Mr. A: confiders Baptifm as having r-e* fpeiSl to the eharacler or profeffion of the perfon baptized, let us fee hov/ his account of the mat- ter will apply to the infant-feed of believers', whom he judges to be the proper fubje£Vs of this inilitution. It fcems^ he fays, an ordinance in'" tended tofigmfy the feparation of the difclpies of Chrifi from an unbelieving and fnful world^ to be a peculiar people to the Lord, This account of Baptifm is, unqueftionably, very fenfible and proper wheii' applied to believers themfelves: for they, having become the difciples of Ghrift by believing on Him, do by Baptifm folemnly profcfs their hav- ing feparated themfelves from an unbelieving and finful world, to be a peculiar people to the Lord. And this view of the intent of Baptifm, with refpe<St to them, very well agrees wich the- pafiages our Author had juft before cited, and on which he grounds his definition; particularly thofe which defcribe them as having put cq* Chrlft, and as becoming members of his myili- eal body. But how does it apply to infants? lo Baptifm a fign or token of their feparation,.
^,1
' j6 "The Nature and In lent
kc.l If it be, what proof, or what appearance ©f proof, have we of fuch feparation? They do not tell us they have feparated thcmfelves, for of that they are incapable. God has no where told us that He has feparateJ this or the other infant to Himfclf. Nor will their parents {ivf, that they have in any other way feparated thcni th?.n by their wiflaes and prayers. And as to Baptifm itfelf it has no efHcacy in it to fcparate them, as Mr. J, himfelf acknowledges, when he tells us that baptifm is not regeneration : bc^ fides, if it had aiiy fuch efficacy 'm it to that end, it would be the inftrument, not thefign or token, of their feparation. Of what then is Baptifm a. fign or token as to infants? of nothing — of no change in their ftate and condition, that hath taken place either before or at their Baptifm.— 1 would here obferve farther, that Mr. y/.'s ac- count of the matter fuppofes them difciplcs of Chrift before Baptifm : v/hich feems flrange, fmce moft defenders of Infant-Baptifm^ in order tt) evade the force of the argument arifing from our Lord's commiffion to teach firft and baptize afterwards, tell us his meaning is that pcrfons are to be difcipled by being baptized j and this feems to be Mr. y/.'s own fenfe of the pafiage, as he has given this interpretation to the word
(f) S.CC p. 11 Q, § 2.
But
- ef Chriftian Baptifm» 17
But, if this account of the nature and intent of Baptifm will not apply to infants, let us fee whether that will which he gives us in the latter claufe of the fentence. *' // Is to be coyifiihrcd\ he tells us, *' as an outward feal or token of the " covenant of God's grace ^ and of his receiving his *' people into that covenant^ and be/f owing upon them *' all its invaluable blejfings" I fliall not ftay here to inquire upon what grounds Baptifm is to be confidercd as a feal or token of the sovenailt; but only obferve, that this idea of it is not war- ranted by thofe paflages of 'fcripturr'eiiV Au-*^ thor had juft cited, and from whence" he in- fers this his account of the nature of this' ordi- nance J for in them there is no mention made? of any covenant, much lefs of Baptifm as the feal of it. Nor is it deducible from any " other *' fimilar reprefentations of Chriftian Baptifm,'* that I can recollea, <' in the New Tefta- *' ment." But we will, for the prefent, ad- mit that it is a feal or token of the covenant. Let us fee then, from Mr. y^.'s account of this covenant, with what propriety the feal of i-t is to be applied to infants. If it be inquired, what- it is that God engages in this covenant to beftoW.^ Mr. y/. replies, " all the bleffings of his love " both here and hereafter." If it be afked, who are the perfons on whom He beftows thefe bleff- ings? Mr. A. anfwers, " his people, thofe who " are born of water and the Spirit, the regene-
" rate*
1 8" ^be Nature and Intent
'•^ rate, and the heirs of promife (d)J^ And \^ it be farther queflioned, how Baptifm becomes * (eal of tin's covenant ? He plainly tells us, *^ not as procurin.g a title to the inheritance of .** the faints, or as having any infiuence to efie6l ** a change upon the baptized, but merely as it ** is an external token or memorial of regenera- •* tion (^)." In which fenfe, hefays, that phrafe, the wajhlng of regenemUGn^ if it refers to Baptifm, is; to be underftood,. That 'ordinance is not rege- neration, *' but a niemorial of it.'.' — I [hall not ftay here to confider the arguments with which he re- futes the opinion of thofe, and particularly of the Chriftian fathers, who confounded Baptifm and regeneration, as upon this matter v/e are agreed. But you will allow me, Sir, ji^il to obferve, as I pafs on, , that if the fathers, and that in a v.ery early age^ yi^i^ capable of falling into fo grofs an error, it is not at aH to be wondered at that they (liould miftake the point, as to the proper
fubjc6ts of Baptifm.- But to return, we have
feen what is our Author's account of the cove- nant of griice. Now, admitting that Baptifm '\% the ical of it, how does it follow that infants^ yea the infant-feed of believers, are the perfons to whom that feal ought to be applied ? Do they anfwcr to the defcription he has given of the fubjc<fls or parties of this covenant? Are they the people of God ] Are they the regene-
^/;?.z, 3. (0 l^>id.
rater
of Chriftian Baptifm. j^
rate? Are they indifcriminately the heirs of that pro-life which includes in it, as he tells us, all the bleflings of God's love both here and here- after? If they are, if the fcripturcs any where fay they are, or if there be any diflinguifhing marks or appearances upon the children of be- lievers, which furniili any the lead credible or probable proof of it ; then it follows upon Mr. y/.'s view of baptifm as a feal, that it ought to be adminiftered to them, tut, on the con- trary, if this is not the cafe, it follows from our Author's own idea of the nature and intent of Baptifni, that infants have no right to it. But, that I may not be charged with mifcaklng his- . meaning, 1 will now,
2. Inquire into the fo ret; of his reafoning, upon a fuppofition, that he confiders Baptifiii inerely as a fign or token of the truths them- fclves exprefled in his definition, without any re- ference of thofe truths to the perfons bnptized. That this is his meaning feerns probable from his ftiling Baptifm a " memorial" of this truth, '' that without renovation of he^irt no one {hall " fee God," and his fpeaking of it as an ordi- nance '^ conne£led with that of preaching (f).'* And if this be his view of Baptifm, it is fimilar to theirs who eonfider the Lord's Supper merely as a reprefentation or memorial of the fa6l of our
Lord 3
'20 I'he Nature and Intent
Lord's death and fufFeringSj and as Intended fa preferve alive the remembrance of that event in the world, without any regard to the chara(5lers of thofe who partake of it, or any obligation it is fuppofed to lay upon them. — 'Nov/, if this be hfs idea of Baptifm, it Is totally indifferent, in regard to the ufe or intent of it, to whom or to what it is admlniftered. Be the baptized who they may, old or young, regenerate or unregenerate^ jielievcrs or infidels-; or be the thing what it will that is baptized, the end is anfwered ; for the ceremony is a public declaration to all men, that whoever is faved mull be fprinkled with the blood of Chrid, and be renewed by the wafhing of re- generation. But furely this notion, as it ap- pears upon the firft view of it to be vain and jHugatory, hath no foundation in fcripture. The New Teftament, it is well known, every where fpeaks of a fubmiflion to this ordinance, as expreflive of the faith of him who is baptized in Chrift the Son of God, of his being- buried with Chrift, of his riling with Him to newnefs of life, of his putting on Chrift, of his incor- poration with Him, and of his concern by Bap- tifm to anfwer a good confcience towards God. And the apoftles reafon, with thofe converts whom they had baptized, upon the perfonal ob- ligations they hereby laid themfelves under to a
holy life and converfation. But I (iiall take
no farther pains to obviate this miftaken notion,
fuice^
cf Chrifiian Bapiifjn, 2 1
iincc, however Mr. J, has fo exprefied himfelf in this chapter as that his account of the nature and intent of Baptifm will admit of fuch a fenfe, the kind of reafoning he afterwards adopts in- clines me to think it cannot be his opinion.
I arin.
Sir^ ^c.
LET.
:'f' 22 ]
LETTER Iir.
Dear Sir,
WE now go on to Mr. J.'s fecond chap- ter, in which he treats of Names and Ceremonies in general^ and the Rite of Immcrfmi in particular. In his firft fedlion he gives us the etymology of the names Pcedo — Antipoedo — and Ana-baptifts. Upon which I fhall only obfcrve, that, -as to the laft of thefe names, the Baptifts confider it as a term of reproach, fmce they ut- terly difapprove of the repetition of Baptifm ; and, if they at any time do baptize thofe who have been fprinkled in their infancy, they do it upon a firm perfuafion that fprinkling and bap- tizing are two diftinc^ things, and of a nature
totally different from each other. As to what
follows, refpeding the unhappy quarrels which have arifen out of an undue attachment to par- ticular names, I moil heartily join with our Author in lamenting thofe evils. There may have been, I am ready to acknowledge, too much warmth on that fide of the queftion for which I am an advocate; but Mr. //. will alfo admit that the Baptifts have received a kind of chaftife- mcnt from other jpens, if not from his, which
the
Groundlefs Preftmptions &c.- 23 the meeknefs and candor he very prop^erly re^ commends, will fcarce jiiftify* So that, if the account remains to be fettled, they m-ay pofTibly have fome fmall demand to make upon their op- ponents, which iyetiLhope they are fincidrely willing to remit.
Mr. A.'s willingnefs, I charitably fuppofe, 16 allay thefe heats, hath haftily led him, in his fecond fe^Stion, into a conceffion upon the point of indifference as to the particular mode of bap- tizing, which I know not how to reconcile with the general tenor of his argument. Ke tells us that '• our divine Mafter hath not abfo- '' lutely fixed the mode of adminiftering water " in this ordinance {a)'' By which it fhould feem he means, that the queftion is \th wholl/ ^undecided, an.d that we are at liberty to pradice ,which form we pleafe. And yet he felfcwhere tells us, on the one hand, that '' he cannot find '^ a Angle paflage, in the v;hole book of God, *' in which the immerfion of the v/hole body is " required in this ordinance [b] j" and on the other,, that ^' fpri^nkling or pouring water js the ^\. .ancient or fcriptural mode of baptizing (<:)—» the point he every where labours to prove. Surely then our Lord has abfolutely fixed the mode. And as this feem's to be our Author's <lear opinion (however he contraditSts himfelf)
■(«)P.ri. (i)P. 13. §3. (OP. 23.
the
3.4- Gronndlefs Prefumptions againft the pains he immediately takes to expofe the zeal of Jewifli' and Gentile converts for ceremonies repealed and laid afide, and for matters perfectly indifferent in th^mfelves, are to no purpofe at all in the prefent argument: for how is an attach- ment to what is required, deferving of the fame cenfure with an attachment to what is not re- quired ? If indeed the faiSt had been as Mr. A. had exprelTed it, tho' undefignedly, that Chrift has not fixed the mode of Baptifm ; then, his zeal for fprinkling, and mine for immerfion, would have clearly brought us both within the defcription of the.v/eak and fcrupulous Corinthians, whofe cafe iie afterwards cites : though even then we fhould not have been equally criminal with thofe others he refers to, v.ho were fond of introducing an- cient ceremonies which had been exprefbly laid afide. - But, if we take the matter the other way, ;ind fay that fcripture has determined the mode, which is our Author's opinion as well as mine ; then, the cafes he has cited are none of them in point as to either of us.— So far, however, as he means to correft a luxuriant zeal, and to per- fuade Chriflians to proportion their warmth to the importance of the matter for which they con- tend, I mofl heartily agree with hLra.
I
But, before I difmifs this fubje6i:, give me leave.
Sir, to take notice of the too frequent abufe of the term Indiffersms^ when applied to the dodirines
the Fra^ite of Immerjton. 25
and precepts of religion. It cannot with pro- priety be affirmed of any truth or duty, that it is in itfelf indifferent, unlefs we will fay that a propofition may be true and falfe, or a duty binding and not binding, at the fame time. The term has refpeil to the importance of any mat- ter j and in this view of it we may very properly fay of a thing, that it is indifferent, as not being of the fame confequence with fome other thing of greater moment, with which it is compared. So, as to Baptifm, if the fcriptures have fixed the mode, it is abfuid to fay the mode is in- dlfTeren't : nor do I know hov/ we can wantonly depart from it without afFronting the authority of Chrift the great Legiflator, and opening the door to a thoufand innovations in religion of very dangerous confequence. But when we confider Baptifm in reference to its importance, we fay right that it is a matter of indifference, in com- parifon with the much weightier concerns of re- ligion, fuch as faith, judgment, and mercy.
To return. Mr. yf.'s laft fe6tion contains 2 collection of general arguments againft immer- fion, taken from the fuppofed Indecency^ Pain* fulnefs^ and in fome places Impra5licahility of it: all which are introduced with an affurance, " that " he cannot find one paffage in the whole book *' of God that requires the immerfion of the *' whole body in water." In what a pitiable C Hate
S.6 Grcundlefs Prefumptions againfl
ftate then muft the Baptifts be! — without one icripture to warrant their pradlice, and the united fuffrages of decency, good-nature, and common- i^n^Q againft it. Sure, Sir, thefe Baptifts muft be a fet of the moft filly, obftinate, ill-natured people in the whole world. But what if it ihould be found in the fequel that the Baptifts have many paflages to produce in favour of im- •merfion 1 fome of them fo clear as to obi ige fevcral very learned Poedobaptifts to acknowledge, that ihat was moft certainly the primitive mode; and all of them fo unyielding even to Mr. A.'s own pen, as to fubjed: them to the torture of near thirty pages ! And what if it ftiould alfo be found that he has not produced either one pre- cept, or one example, to authorize Baptifm by fprinkling! In that cafe, I fancy, Sir, j'ou will agree with me, that though it is not quite fo generous in our Author, at the outfet, to repre- fent the Baptifts as oftending againft the rules of modefty, and laying a yoke upon the difciples of Chrift too grievous to be borne ; yet, that fuch a kind of appeal to the paflions of weak perfons, and particularly to the delicacy of the tender fex, is prudent, and fhews him to be well fkilled in the arts of controverfy. Thefe illiberal refle6lions on the pra61ice of immerfion, are fo frequently thrown out by fome fort of writers on this fub- ^jed, that I am fure they may be ftiled, as Mr. A. fomewhere exprefies it, '' hackney'd obferva-
*' tionsi"
ihe Prague of Immerfwn, 27
*^ tions;" though I will not fay he is " an ill- *' natured retailer of them (^j," fince lam ra- ther inclined to think the weaknefs of the caufe he was defending rendered them in fome fort neceflary.
And now, what is our Author's reafoning upon thefe trite and invidious topics of argu- ment? Havino; told us that " immerfion was " not the ufual manner of wafhing with water *' under the Mofaic difpenfation," (afacl which IMr. A, can fcarce expect we fliould credit upon. his bare afiertion, and which, as it is only thrown out here occafionally, I fnall refer to after confideration) having, I fay, aflerted this, he adds, " But if immerfion had been the ufual *' manner, we cannot think that Jefus would " have enjoined it upon his followers in all ages " and nations.'* And why? — *' Becaufe fuch *' an indecent and grievous practice would have '' very ill become the condefcending regard the *' merciful Jefus was ufed to pay to the genius and *' cuftoms of the people among whom He lived j" and does by no means confift with the cautions his Apoftles afterwards direded to Chriftians, " to give none offence^ either to Jeiv or Gentile, or *' the church of God (^)". Our Saviour's *con- defcending compliance with the indifferent ufages of the Jews is not to be queftioned, nor will,
(^; Dedicat. p. 6. (^) P. 13. § 3.
C 2 I fup-
2 8 Groundlefs .Prefumptions againft
I fuppofe, any fober man deny that we ought to avoid giving jufl: caufe of offence to any. But, if the cudoms and prejudices of the people in general are to be confulted, in order to our de- termining whether this or that inftitution be of divine authority ; I fear Mr. A, will find himfelf obliged to renounce his profeflion as a Diflenter, and reconcile himfelf to the church of England^ if not that of Rome. His argument therefore hath no weight in it, unlefs the practice of im- merfion is really indecent^ and fo a violation of the law of nature; or \' try grievous ^ and fo fcarce practicable. Each of thefe charges, however, he fets himfelf with a very good will to prove.
Indeed, as to the charge oi Indecency^ we are obliged to our Author for a conceflion at fetting out, which (though I hardly know how to re- concile it with what he had faid a few lines be- fore) in a good meafure takes off the imputation of immodefty he would fain fix upon it. " The " ufual methods, fays he, of baptizing by im" *' merfion might not, perhaps, eighteen hundred " years ago, be offenfive in Judea." He had told us juft before that " immerhon was not the ufual *' manner of wafhing with water under theMo- " faic difpenfation (/)." But now it fliould feem it was, and that Mr. A, has changed his mind upon that point. Or, if his meaning is that the
prefent
the Prague of Immerfwn, 29
prefent ufual methbd -of baptizing by immerfion, had it been pra6lircd at that time, might not be ofFenfive, that is, deemed indecent; ftill he ad- mits that that method is not in itfelf indecent, and of confequence that this prefumption of his againft it is groundleis. But I will go farther than our Author, and hy^ that immerfion not only 7mght then be, but that it actually was^ pra6tired with decency. Jofephus^ m his account of the EJfenes^ a feet remarkable for their modefty, defcribes particularly the manner in which they bathed themfelves every day before dinner. Hav- ing related how they employ themfelves all the morning at their trades, he tells us, that at a certain hour they again afTen-ible in one place, andy having drejjed ihemfelves In limn ckaihes^ they thus wajh their bodies in cold water (g).
Mr. J. goes on, ** nor can we fay that the *^ method of baptizing by immerfion, would cif- *' gufl: the uncultivated and uncloathed inhabitants *' of the fouth of Africa even now." So that, upon the whole, he is of opinion it might be in- ofFenfive enough in Judaea and Africa. — " But it is very certain'* (and here comes in a charge againft the Baptifts, which like a mighty mill- ftone is to fink their dodlrine, and with it their
(gj — ^aa-AiMvoi TS aiti'7ra,<riJ.A(7t hiycti, «t&'^ attO'
>\.iiOp]ctl TO (TCO^ct '4'V)^pOli Vcf'AtTf*
Jofeph. deBel. Jud. lib. 2. cap. 8. Edit. Hudfon. C 3 repu-
C(
tc
30 Gromdlefs Prefumptions againji
reputation too, fo as never any more, in the opinion of modeft and virtuous perfons, to rife agavi) " it is very certain, that the cufiom of *' publlckly plunging mixed multitudes of men ** and women, either naked (as Tome have done) or in thin veftments, or in their ufual drefs, is accounted an indecency by many in more *« civilized nations (h),^* I fuppofe a common reader, who happened to be unacquainted with the Baptifts, would conclude from this repre- fentation of them, that it is their cufiom pub- lickly to plunge mixed multitudes of men and women naked, or in fuch thin veftments as ren- der their manner of baptizing very indecent. And yet the fentence is fo conftrudled, I will not fay dcfignedly, as to enable our Author to ehide the cenfure of mifreprefentation. For, if it be denied that they baptize perfons naked, or in thin garments, he has flill to reply that his charge is, that they plunge perfons either naked, #r in thin veftnients, or in their ufual drefs. So that if they difprove the two former charges, the latter remains true. Yet it is plain from the connexion of the fentence with what he had faid jud before of the /wJ^^jfW Africans, and with what immediately follows concerning bath'ingy that he meant to fix the imputation of great in- decency upon their mode of baptizing. ;•-. ., fic verts falfa remifcet,
(h) P. ,3. §3.
Let
the Pra5iice of Immerfion, 31
Let us therefore fpend a few words upon what is thus infinuated to their difreputatlon. Will our Author fay that it is their cuftom to plunge mixed multitudes of men and women naked ? No. — But '' this fome have done." Pray who are thcfe perfons? Mr. J. would do well to tell us. If, however, there were one or two fach per- fons; their condudlj which he cannot but know the Baptifts in general v/ould deteft with horror,, would admit of no conclufion unfavourahle to immerfion, any more than the abufe of the Lord's fupper among the Corinthians, would admit of aa inference unfavourable to the ufe of wine in that inilitution. — But is it their cuftom to baptize perfons in fuch thin veftments, as render the pradice immodeft ? I believe Mr. ^. himfelf, if he has been ufed to attend any of thefe fo- lemnities, will fcarce venture to aflert it. Or if he has not attended any of them, thofe of his friends or relaiiotis that have, if he will take the pains to inquire of them, will fUfficiently inform him to the contrary. Why then fliould he in- fmuate, concerning his poor brethren the Baptifts, that their pracftice, though it might not difguft an uncloathed African, yet is indecent in this civilized country ? For, after all, their practice is found to be no other than that of immerfing perfons in the water, in their ufual drefs (/).
And
(i) If Mr. A. had ever been at Bath^ Southajnpton. Sec. . he would have known, that, for men. and women, pro-
32 Groundlefs Prefmnpiions againjl
And is this to be accounted fuch an indecency, as that " profefTing Chriftians in general, and ** the women in particular, fhould be called upon *' to fee to it that they have the authority of an *' expreTs command of Chrift, before they fub- " mit to be thus plunged in water, lefc they of- *' fend forne, and give occafion to others to fpeak *' evil of the gofpel, and of their divine Mafter ?" Surely, Sir, fome of this warmth might be fpared. Or, however, if there were a propriety in a cau- tion of this kind to Chriftian men, there feems, methinks, little occafion for fo folemn an addrefs to the women 'i fince the natural delicacy and ten- dernefs of their fex, Mr. J. mufl be fenfible from the dread he himfelf feels at the idea of immer- lion, wculd fcarce allow i/>^;;2 to fubmit toit,if that siuthority he refers to had not had its due weight with them. Nor need he remind them, " that ** it is uncomely for a woman to pray to God un-^ *' covered.'* They know it^ but cannot under- ftand how it (hould from thence be infer'd, that it is uncomely to follow their Mafter into his grave, in their ufual drefs. Vile, indeed, they may be in the eyes of fome few who contemptu- oufly watch them from the window of a Michal ; but that, 1 am perfuaded, gives them little un- eafinefs, as they have not only the ark of the
pcrly cloathed, to bathe promifcuoufly, and in publick, is not confidered as indecent by people in genera), in this idund.
covenant
the TraBice cf Immerfwn. 33
covenant with them, but alfo the teftlmony of all fober fenfible fpedators, to the decency ob- ferved on thefe folemn occafions.
But, if the plunging perfons in the water, ia their ufual drefs, be not indecent, is not the pra(flice of immerfion trkfome and painful? Our Author is of opinion it is, and that " in many " feafons and climates it is not only burdenfome, *' but unfafe both to people and minifters; not '' only diftreffing to the fpirits, but hazardous to '* the conftitution : and therefore he cannot " think that the tender and compafTionate Jefus, " whofe yoke is eafy, and who exprefTcd a ten- *' der regard to the lives and health of mankind *' in general, and of his own difciples in par- ** ticular, that he would uniyerfally require " the performance of fuch a rite as this (d).''^ If Mr. A. means no more by this, than that Chrift would not have Baptifm adminiflercd to any at the manifeft hazard of their lives,' and that in all fuch inflances it fbouJd be for- borne ; the Baptifts intirely agree with hiin, and for the reafon he has mentioned, " be- " caufe God will have mercy and not fiicri- " fice." But if he would infer from the fup- pofed unfafety, in fome inftances, of baptizing by immerfion, that therefore it is not probable that mode would be enjoined at all, his rcafon- (d) Page 14, 15.
C 5 ing
34 Groundkfs Prefumptions againfl ing furely is not very conclufive. It is much as if he were to fay upon the paflage juft before cited, that becaufe facrificing was in feme in- ftances injurious to a perfon, and upon that ac- count not required, that therefore it is not ima* ginable God would require men to facrifice at all ; and that our Saviour's vindicating his fol- lowers in breaking through a reftri6lion of the Mofaic law, furnifhed a prefumptive argument againfl the law itfelf. But who does not per- ceive the weaknefs of fuch reafoning ? The con- clufion indeed has feme force with refpedl to thofe feafons and climates, in which immerfion is ma- nifeftly unfafe and hazardous. But Mr. /I. muft firfl: tell us what thofe feafons and climates are. Is it at the manifeft hazard of mens lives, that they at any feafon of the year bathe in this country ? No furely. Prejudiced as people were formerly againfl the practice of bathing, there were fen- fible men, phyficians and others, who intirdy approved of it *. But it is now, I believe, ge- nerally
* Lord Bacon fays, *' It is ftrange that the ufe of bath- ** ing, as a part of diet, is left. With the Romans and *♦ Giaecinns it was as ufvial as eating or fleeping ; and
" To it is aniongft the Turks at this day ; " Nat.
Hid. Cent. VIII. Experiment 740, touching the ufe of b.uhing.
Sir John Floyery an eminent phyfician, in an effivy wrote by him about the beginning of this century, to prove cold bathing both fafe and ufeful, gives an account of many great cures done by it, and infcrts an alphabetical cata- logue
the FraEfue of Immerftcn, 35
nerally acknowledged, to be not only fafe but ufeful. Many are baptized at all feafons of the year ; nor have I yet heard of any one'§ fufFering in his health thereby. Nay, in RufTia, a much colder climate than this, it is well known that Baptifm is univerfally adminiftered by immerfion. What ground then for this cenfure upon the Baptifts ; as if, void of that tendernefs and com- panion which diftinguifhed their Mafter, they were willijig to facrifice the health and lives of their friends to their obftinate fingularity ? His argument, therefore, from the fu|5pofed danger of baptizing by immerfion, is totally Vv^ithout foundation.
But it will ft ill be faid, if it be not unfafe, yet it is fo grievous a rite, that we can fcarce pre- fume the mild and gentle Jefus would enjoin it upon his difciples. So then. Sir, its difagree- ablenefs to flefh and blood is to be the criterion . of a divine inftitution. Surely, if Abraham and his defcendents had reafoned after this manner, ,
logue of difeafes againft which it has been fuccefsful. I the rather mention hiin, becaufe he takes occafion in the courfe of this performance, to lament (for this veiy rea- fon of the utility as well as fafety of bathing) the dii'ure of Baptifmal immeifion in Englandjwhich, he fays, continued ^ till about the year 1600 ; and obferves, that no fubje6> can give a clearer evidence, how eafily new opinions can change the bed and mod ancient pra6lices, both in religion and i phyfick, than this, .
C. 6 thcyv
^6 Groundlefs Prefumptlons agai}ijl they would fcarce have admitted the painful ceremony of circunicifion into their religion; or however they v/ould have quickly changed it in-» to one m.ore eafy and tolerable. But Mr. J, aware of this objedion, tells us that the difpen- fation of the gofpei Is mild and fpiritual. It is fo ; yet, notwithftanding its mildnefs, it fubjedls Chriftians to much greater inconveniencies, than this fingle one of being immerfcd once in their lives in the water. It requires them to denyihcm- felves^ and take up their crofs^ and follow Chr'iji : and what good man will fay that thefe precepts are ajiy jufl imputation on the mildnefs of the Chrif- tian inftitution ? But It will be replied, that whatever is painful in thofe precepts arifes, not out of the gofpei, but the oppofition it meets with. True. And you will give me leave to obferve alfo with refpe<51: to Baptifm, that the chief of what is irkfome in it arifes, not out of the inftitution Itfelf, but the contempt in which it is generally held. Admitting, however, that there is fomething dlfagreeable to nature in the immerfion of the body in the water, that "It " agitates the fpirits," and throws a kind of gloom over the minds cf fpe£lators : yet thefe circumftances, Inftead of being a real obje6tioii to this mode of baptizing, do the more clearly evince the iitnefs and propriety of It ; fince the general intent of the ordinance is to exprefs our
death
the P radii ce of Immerfion, ^7
death and burial with Chrift. And though it may fo happen in fome few cafes (I fay few, be- caufe I am fure fuch inftances arc not general) that " the mind is difcompofed, and rendered " unfit for the exercife of proper thoughts and " afFedions j" yet that hurry of the fpirits is very tranfient, and the moral and fpiritual pur- pofes of the inftitution are not thereby defeated. And after ail, the little imeafinefs which perfons may be fuppofed to endure, is abundantly com- penfated by the pleafure which arifes from the anfwer of a good confcience towards God, and the teftimony they hereby give of their fincere
aiFe61ion to Chrifl. As to what our Author
farther adds, concerning the impojjibility of ad- miniftring the ordinance by immerfion in fome countries for want of water, the obje(Stion is fo idle, that it fcarce requires an anfwer. If, how- ever, thofe travellers he fpeaks of, who cannot get water to quench their thirft, happen to be Pcedobaptifts, they will, I fuppofe, be at much the fame lofs to get their children fprinkled, as the Antipcedobaptifls to be immerfed.
I am afraid, Sir, I have wearied you with this long letter ; and the rather as mofl of the argu- ments advanced in this chapter are of fuch a kind, that a confiderate reader can fcarce avoid perceiving, at firft view, their weaknefs and fu- 5 tility.
^8 Groundlefs Prefumptions^ 5rc.
tility. But, when you refledl that they are po-» pular topics, and that, when addreffed to the paflions, they have ufually a mighty efFei^:, you will excufe my having taken thefe pains to ex- pofe them.
lam.
Sir, &c.
LET-
E 39 J
LETTER IV.
Dear Sir,
HAving confidercd our Author's prefumptlve arguments againft immerfion, and {hewn them to be totally groundlefs, we proceed now to the main queftion, refpe(SlIng the true and proper meaning of the word Baptize^ which is the fubje6t of his third chapter. Mr. A. has not indeed exprefsly told us, whether he thinks it fignifies to wafh by fprinkling, or pouring only J or to wafli, indifferently, either by fprink- ling or plunging. It fliould feem, from the di- ftin<ftion he makes between ^rirj/lco and (ioL^^Jt^a^. from his fo clearly apprehending that fprinkling was the ancient fcriptural mode, and from his obferving concerning paiTages wherein Baptifm is^ fpoken of, that there is not a word of immerfion or dipping in them j it fhould feem, I fay, from hence, that he is of opinion the word properly and only fignifies to fprinkle, or to wafli by fprinkling. And in that cafe he muft confider thofe as violating our Saviour's command, who. adminifter the ordinance by dipping. But I am. rather inclined to think, from the general drift 5 of
40 ^he meaning of the wcrd Baptize, cf his reafoning, and particularly from his ar- gument towards the clofe of this chapter, con- cerning diverfe wajh'mgs^ that he underftands the word in the latter fenfe, as fignifying to waJJj, indifferently, t\t\\tv by plunging ox fprinkling : fo that, whatever be the refult of the debate be- tween him and me, you fee. Sir, our pradice of immerfion is, upon his principles, fufficiently juftified. On this ground, therefore, as confi- dering the mode perfedly indifferent, I am to meet him ; and to prove, on the contrary, that the word Baptize^ properly and only fignifies dipping.^ or fuch wajhing as includes dipping in it.
As Mr. J. apprehends the two words ^a.'Tfla and ^tfjclt^eo differ in their fignification, it will be proper, before we proceed, to confider what he has to fay in fupport of this opinion, and to fhew, on the contrary, that they are fynony- mous. He tells us, that " all who are acquaint- " ed with the original language of the New *' Teftament, muft not only know that there is *' a difference between primitive and derivative •' words, but likewife that thofe in ^ty are fre- *' quently diminutives; fo that as ^cL7r]co fignifies " to wafh, ^'xrr\i^co is to wafh a little (d).** Admitting, for a moment, that this criticifm of Mr. A.'s were juft, it would not furely warrant the confequence he draws from it. For how
(d) Page 17.
does
ne meaning of the word Baptize. 41 does it follow from the verbs in ^co ht'ing fre- quently diminitives, that the verb (icLTrl/^cc muft be fo ? He fhould have firft proved that all the verbs in (^eo are diminutives, and then his con- clufion in this particular inftance would have been juft. But I will venture to affirm, Sir, that there are a vaft number of derivatives, and of derivatives in ^a too, which fignify the fame as their primitives. Wherefore our Author's af- fertion, that ^dtrrli^co fignifies to wajh a little^ is rather hafly and inconfiderate. Nay, fo far is the word from being a diminitive, that fome learned men have confidered it as a frequentative, and fuppofed that it fignifies io dip over and over again (f). So that in their opinion, it retains precifely the fame fenfe of dipping, or of wafh- ing by dipping, with its primitive ^et'Trla* This will alfo clearly appear from the inftances I (hall by and by refer to. To which I will add, that fome of our moft confiderable opponents, by ar- guing promifcuoufly from both words, feem to admit that their meaning is fynonymous. Nor yet do I wiQi, by confounding the two words, to evade any argument drawn from the ufe of either of them, that may feem at all unfavourable to immerfion ; and fhall therefore attend to our Author's reafoning on each of them feparately.
Cf) So Tertullian feems to have taken it, when he ren- dered it by mergitarej as alfo VofTius and Stephens.
Let
^2. ^'be meaning of the word Baptize.
Let us now proceed, firft, to confider what Mr. A, has advanced in fupport of his fenfe of the word Baptize ; and, fecondly, by a few plain reafons to eflablifli that which I have given of it.
First, as to Mr. J.'s fenfe of the word : he feems to be of opinion, as I faid before, that it iigm^ts to wafiy indifterently, either by plunging or fpr inkling. And,
I. With refpea to /5«'t7&', he tells us, " It *' has been often acknowledged that it fignifies *' to zvajh in general, either by dipping, or in *' any other way (g).^' As our Author admits that it figniiies to waih by dippings fo far we are agreed. But he infills that it fignifies alfo to Wafh in any other way. Now what proof does he give us of this ? Why, he tells us, that the word " occurs in fome places where there is not the leaf!: appearance of dipping (h).^* In fup- port of this afTertion he has, however, produced only one paiTage ; which, though he lays great ftrefs upon it, v^ill, I am perfuaded upon ex- amination, fail him. It is the ufe which the Septuagint verfibn makes of the word /3st7r7<y in the cafe of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. v. 21. His body WAS WET {'.CcL(r,\]) with the deiv of heaven. Upon which he obferves that the word is here
(g) Page 17. (b) Ibid.
ufed
^'he meaning of the word Baptize. 4^ ufed " to defcrite the fall of the dew upon him 5 •' and that he was wet, wafhed, or baptized *' with the dew, not as being plunged in it» *' but as it diftilled, or h\\ in fmall drops upon *' him (i).'^ But, with our Author's leave, the word iCsiq)-,) is not ufed to defcribe the adtion of the dew as diftilling or falling upon him, but to cxprefs the ftate of Nebuchadnezzar's body, which was, as it were, dipped or plunged in dew. Now it is very remarkable, as Dr. Gale has largely fhewn in his anfwer to Mr. TVall^ that the original Chaldee word pillDK% which is here rendered by iCatpv, neceflarily implies dip- ping, as appears by the conftant ufe of the word ; and that it is by this Chaldee word the Jerufalem Targum renders the Hebrew /H^, Lev. iv. 6. which alfo unqueftionably fig- niiies to dip. So that Daniel himfelf chufing to defcribe the irate Nebuchadnezzar v/as in, as all over wet with dew, by his being, as it were^ dipped in it; the Septuagint very properly tran- flated the Chaldee original by iCct(p», From this view of the pafiage, it appears evident to me, that ^ct'7/]cey even here, retains its natural and proper fenfe j or however that Mr. J. is too hafty- in faying that '' there is not in this place the^ *' leaft appearance of dipping." And after all^ admitting that there is a difficulty in this pafTagc.,. it is to be obferved that the word, in moil other
0) Page iS.
places
^4 ^-^^ meaning of the word Baptize. places where tlie Septuagint ufe It, fo neceflarily' fignifies dipping, that it is impofiible for our Au- thor, or any one elfe, to give it a different mean- ing ; nor indeed can it be fatisfailorily proved,, in any one inftance, that that idea is excluded from the word (k). It follows therefore that Mr. J. has not made good his aflertion, that ^ct7r%y fignifies wajJnng in any way. — We proceed now to confider what our Author has to fay,
2. To the word ^ctTrji^cc. Here, Sir, he feems to think his chief ftrength lies ; and it is highly fit, as that is the cafe, that he fhould have his full fcope. I wilt therefore take no advantage of what was obferved before, to prove that the two words are fynonymous i but confider him with as much attention, as if it were admitted that their meaning might be various. As, in- deed, he chufes to examine them feparately, he fhould have given us notice of his tranfition from the one to the other, and not abruptly paffed from Nebuchadnezzar to the Ifraelites, without telling us he had difmifled the primitive, and was beojinnino: with the derivative. This inattention to method is, however, eafily to be accounted for, by the fudden effeS: which the likenefs be- tween thefe two Baptifms might have upon Mr. J,*s imagination, and the pleafure he very pro-
(k) See Gale againft Wall, p. 140.
bably
The meaning of the word Baptize. 45 bably felt from the irrefragable proof thence ari- iing to the divine authority of fprinkling.
His firfl: paflage then to prove that ^a.'/\t^co fig- nlfies to woj}) a little^ and of confequence that the ordinance is more properly admin iftered by fprin- kling than by immerfion, is this of i Cor. x. 2. in v^^hich the Apoftle tells us, that the Ifraelites were baptized unto A4ofes in the cloudy and in the fca. Upon thefe words Mr. J. obferves that " the *' cloud defcended in a plentiful rain upon them, " and the waves of the fea fprinkled them as " they pafled along f/J." So that from our Author's own account of the matter they were wajhed a great deal^ not ^ Utile. As therefore they were in much the fame ftate with Nebu- chadnezzar, covered all over with the cloud and the fea, as he was with the dew; there feems the fame propriety in the Apoftle*s ufing the word ^rfTT^i'^a here, as in the Septuagint's uUng BifT/lu in Daniel. And what flrengthens the idea, or however would ftrengthen it in the apprehenfion of an ordinary reader, is the Apoftle's adding that they were baptized in the cloud and in the fea : the moft natural and proper rendering of the par- ticle IV that could polTibly be given. But Mr. ^. has a way of evading this obje£lion by telling us, " it might have been rendered by or ^Z." Since however, the meaning of particles depends very
(/; P. 18.
much
4^ ^he meaning of the word Baptize.
much upon the connexion they ftand in, he fhould have given us his reafons for this freedom in the prefent cafe, and not have put his reader ofF with an expedation of fome general difcuffioii of the queftion concerning particles elfewhere. The truth is, it better ferved his purpofe to tranf- late it by or at-, and that, in the eye of prejudice, is a reafon of no fmall ftrength. But let any one judge v^'hich interpretation is moft natural, even upon the view our Author had himfelf given us of the pafTage, He had told us that " the cloud *■' defcePided in a plentiful rain upon them, and " that the v/aves of the fea fprinkled them," I fuppofe on each fide. And what then ? Why, this having been their fituation, he would have the Apoftle tell us, that they were wajked a little^ or that they zvere fprinhkd by or at the fea. On the contrary, I fay, they were iTmnerfed or plunged in the cloud and in the jea* I fancy Mr. A. and moft other people, when a plentiful rain has de- fcended on them, are apt to fpeak of themfelves as having been In a {hower, if not immerfed in it. It does not follow then from this pafTage that ^a,Tr]i^6) will admit of the fenfe for which our Author contends. — And here I v/ould remind you again, Sir, that it lies upon Mr. J. to prove, in the texts he cites, that the word not only may fignify fprinkling, or wafhing by fprinkling, but that that fenfe of it is necejfarily included in thofe paflages; or elfe his argument is not conclufive.
We
^e meaning ofjhe word Baptize. 47 We go on then to the next inftance he pro- duces to that end, and that is the words of the evangelift Mark, who, fpeaking of the Phari- fees, fays, ch. vii. 4. JVhen they come from the market^ except they zvajh ((idi'Trjiffm^oii^ they eat not, jind many other things there he which they have r<?- uived to hold^ as the wajhing (Sicfujio-uvc) of cups and pots, brafen vcffels, and of tables. Now Mr. yf.'s reafoning from this paflage, if I rightly underiland him, is this ; — firft, That thepurifications required in the Jewifh law were performed by fprinkling, and that therefore the words ^cl^']i^co and jSct-tr- 7i<ruog mufl here be underftood of fprinkling : and — fecondly, That, from the particular cir- cumftances of the cafes here mentioned, it would be abfurd to underiland them in this place in any other, fen fe.
Firft, as to the Jewifh vvafhings for purifica- tion ; he fays, " they were ordered to be per- *' formed by fprinkling (.'tz)." It is needlefs to follow our Author through all the paflages he has, or might have, cited from the law of Mofes wherein fprinkling is mentioned. The queftion Js, whether the legal purifications were performed by fprinkling (jw/y ; or fo generally in that way, as that wherever their Baptifms are refer'd to, it would be abfurd or improper to fay that im- merfion or plunging was meant. This furely
/m) P. 19.
Mr.
48 7'he meaning of the word Baptize. Mr. A. will not affirm. On the contrary, it may be eafily fhewn that in their purifications they frequently vvafhed their hands and their feet, and, in many cafes, their whole bodies in water. Thus, as to the confecration of the priefts, M.V.A. indeed chufes to tell us only of " Mofes*s " pouring the anointing oil upon the head of " Aaron to fandify him;" but the context of that pafiage tells us alfo that Mofes brought Aaron and his fons^ and wajhed them with water ^ Lev. viii. 12, 6. And in the parallel pafiage, Exod. xxix. 4. where Mofes is commanded to wafh them, Jonathan renders ^^^ to dip^ thou /halt dip them in forty meafures of fpring water. And though Mr. A, thinks it ftrange that any " fliould infer " from the account given us, 2 Chron. iv. 6. *' concerning the molten fea, that the priefts " were to be plunged in it (;z) ;" yet, when he refle£ls on its fize, that it contained near icoo barrels of water, and that the text fiays, the fea was for the pricfts to ivojh in lH, his wonder will, methinks, ceafe. Nor will the general order he refers to, Exod. xxx. 19. wherein mention is only made of their wafhing their hands and feet at the laver when they went into the tabernacle, admit of a conclufion that at their confecration, and on other occafions, they were not plunged in it. And as to the unclean perfon mentioned Numb. xix. 8, whofe purification, it fliould feem
in) P. zi»
from
I'he meaning of the word Baptize. 49 from Mr. y/.'s brief account of it, was performed merely by fprinkling the holy water upon him ; the very next verfe (which, not being to his purpofe, he prudently pafies over) tells us, that on the fevcnth day he was to purify hlmfelf, and ivajf) Jj'is ckatheSy and bathe hlmfelf in water, and fo be ^han. This was the day of cleanfing, and this ceremony the chief part of his purification. It is here aifo to be obferved, that the original word ufed in this place for bathings is the fame that is ufed in the ftory of Naaman to exprefs his dip- ping in Jordan. — And now, as it thus clearly appears that the Jewifh purifications were not ordered to he performed by fprinkling only^ but chiefly by bathing or dipping j it follows, that (iaTrji^eif and Q,ct'7f\i<7uoi, in this pafTage, are not necefla- rily to be underftood of fprinkling or pouring water. Yet,
Secondly, our Author flill obje£ls, " it feems " utterly incredible that the Pharifees fhould *' plunge their whole bodies in water before ** every meal, or that they fhould dip their ta- « bles and beds at all (d?)." But Mr. J. here fuppofes what we are not obliged to maintain (/>),
(0) P. 20.
(/>) That, however, there were thofe among the Jews who daily waflied their whole bodies, appears from a paf- fage quoted from Jofephus, page 19th of thel'e Letters. And TertuUian fays, Though the JeiAjs daily 'vcajh e'verj part 0] the body, j£i they are ne^ver clean.
50 ^'he meaning of the word Baptize. The plain fads the Evangelifl means to report, in the third and fourth verfes, are, that the Pha- rifees were ufed always to wafti their hands be- fore their meals j and th^t, if at any time when they came from the market they were extra- ordinarily defiled, they waflied their whole bo- dies. This account of their common and their extraordinary purifications is very natural and pertinent. Whereas it fhould feem little better than a tautology for the facred Hiflorian to {d^'f "in the third verfe, that except they wafh their hands oft they eat not, and to add immediately in the fourth vcrfe, that when they come from the market, except they waili their hands they eat not. Nov/, I hope, it is not " utterly in- ** credible" that they (hould plunge their whole bodies in water on occafion of extraordinary de- filement, fmce, as we h:ive feen jufl before, that was what the law of Mofes required. And if the Pharifees, zealous for the traditions of the eWers, refined upon this law, and obliged perfons in fuch cafes inilantly, and before they eat any thing, to practice this ceremony; nay, if by their explanation of the law refpecling defilement, they made the occafions of fuch immerfion much more frequent than Mofes had done, is there any thing at all in this to be wondered at ? And, for the confirmation of the fenfe I have given of the pafi^age before us, I will add the comment X)f the great Grotius upon it, They dean- fed
^he meaning of the word Baptize. 51
fed ihemfelves, fays he, .w/V/? greater care from any defilement they got by touching another at market ; for in fiich cafe they purified themfelves^ not by waft)ing the hands only^ but by immerfeng the body [q). And Beza obferves, that '^tn{\i^^,a^(jLi in this place is more than yipt'n']iiv\ for it /hould feem the former is to he underjiood of thi whole hody^ the latter 07:ly of the hands [r). It is not then incredible that the Evangclift lliould mean hy ^di'Tr]/ a coA^i in the fourth veife that they were immcrfed or plunged in water (j).
And noa', as to their wafhing their hands, ia the third \ erfe ; though Mr. A. will not fay it u abfolutely incredible, that that fiiould be done by dipping them in water, yet he thinks he can prove, from the ftory of EliCha's pouring water on the hands of Elijah, 2 Kings iii. 11. that the hands
{q) Majori ciira fe purgabant a fori conta61:'j, quippe non raanvis tantum lavando, fed & corpus merfando.
(r) Plus autem eft ^xTrlt^ta-Qut hoc in loco quam x^h vittIuvj quod iljud videatur de corpore univerfo, iftud de manibiiS duntaxat iiitelligenduni.
(s) T'le Syriac, '.Arabic, Ethiopic, and Perfic verfions (is Dr. Gale iiath ohi'erved, and as appears by the Poly- glot) underftaad the words in a d ftlient ftnfe, viz. A^id nvhat ,thi;!gs, they buy in .the market-, except they be wajhcd^ ihry eat not. Which, if it be the fenfe of the paffage, Tenioves even the (Indow of a difficuhyj for no one can be at a lofs what is the proper and natural way of wafh- ing herbs, and fuch other things as are ufually bouglrt at inaiket.
D 2 of
52 The meaning of the word Baptize.
of the Pharifees alfo were wafhed by afFufion or fprlnkling. Not to fpeak of the diftance of time between Elijah and Chrift, or of Dr. Gale's very natural criticifm upon this paflage, that it might have been rendered, ivho poured out luater for v^, not UPON, the hands cf Elijah; I think it is pretty evident that it was the cuftom among the Jews, to wafli their hands by dipping them in water. The more natural a cuftom is, the more general j and, I fuppofe, it flrikes every one that this is the moft natural way of wafhing the hands. Such Is the pra61ice among us, and, I fmcy, in moft other countries. Why then fhould we fuppofe, unlefs driven to it by neceftity, that the Jews waflied their hands [U it may be called wafhing them) by aftufion or fprlnkling? In the paflage before us the words run thus, exc£pt ihcy ivajh their hands ^avyp.i^ to the elhow^ or at leaft the wj'iji 5cc. and furely fuch wafiiing one would imagine fhould be by plunging. And the Evan- gelift John's account of our Saviour's wafhing the feet of. his difciples moft naturally agrees, I think, with this idea. Jfier that^ fays he, John xiii. 5. he poureth water into a bofon^ and began to wajh the difciples feet.
But if neither the waftiing the whole body, nor the hands, by dipping them in water, be in- credible; yet furely " it is incredible," our Au- thor thinks, " that. they fhould wafh their beds
"after
^he meaning of the word Baptize. 53
*' after that manner." But why fhould this feem fo ftrange, fince the law of Mofes exprefsly directs, that every vejfel which is uridean^ whether it be of.wood^ or raiffieniy or fkin^ or fack^ Jhould be put into water? {'^it(piia{jai) Lev. xi. 32. And if the friends of the paralytick were at the pains to take him in his bed to the top of the houfe, and to let him down from thence into the room where Chrift was; it is more than pofiible that the fuperftitious zeal of the Pharifees might in- duce them to be at the pains of putting their beds, when defiled, into the water. It would carry me too far, Sir, or I might mention many cufloms of theirs full as abfurd, if not more fa than this. And after all, there is no neceffity of rendering the word ;tA/pH beds^ for it fignifics alfo tables^ as our IVanflators have rendered it. —Thus I think Mr. yf.'s reafoning from this pafiage, upon which he and others lay To great a ftrefs, is fufficiently fliewn to be inconclufive.
There remains only one more pafTage to be -confidered, and which, as it is the laft our Author produces, is I reckon in his opinion ut- terly incapable of being fatisfaclorily anfweredi It is the phrafe of diroerfe wajhings (J^icttpopon &ut- Ti^(j.ct<) Heb. ix. 10. To prove that it necef- farily includes fprinkling in it, Mr. J. gives us- the remark of a fenfible writer upon it (whom yet he has not named) the whole of whofe rea- D 3 foning.
54 5"^^ meaning of the zvord Baptize, ibning feems to be this, that as the phrafe /'la- ^^f^ >:^tfc;^aa']fit, Rom xii. 6. has refpecfl: to the feveral fpecies or kinds of gifts, fuch as prophecy, teaching, ruling, &g. of which xapjc/jictja. is the g'^Rus; fo the phrafe of J^/cte-ooi iixz/j/af^ci refers . to the feveral fpecies or modes of wafhing, fuch as fprinkling or plunging, of which liu7rli<T[j.u is the genus. But whoever confiders that this Au- thor takes it for granted that wafDmgs is the pro- per rendering of ^-xr/jiffy.o/, and fo reafons from vvafhings, as the genus, to fprinkling and plung- ing aij the f|>ecies; whoever I fay confiders this, will quickly perceive that his reafoning is falLici- cus. V/e inilft that the proper tneaning of the word 3<X'3!7^cr/y.5/ is bathings or dippings : where- fore we may, with as good reafen as this fenf:ble wrltery argue analogically from this other paifage in Romans, and fay, that as prophecy, teaching, . ruling, &c. are the difterent fpecies of the genus gifts; fo the various plungings of priefls, Icvites, and people, for confecraiion, defilement, &c. are the different fpecies of the genus dippings or bathin^gs. And what is the refult of this reafon- ing? Why, that we are in flatu quo, and that nothing is from hence to be argued either way. So that it cannot be proved from this paflage, that ^f.'7r]i(T(/.oi neceffarily includes the idea of iprinkling. On the contrary, as the context does not obliore us to underhand the word of fprinkling, and as its" original and proper fen fe
is
The meaning of the word Baptize. c^^
is dipping, or fuch a wafhing as is by clipping, it fhould rather Teem that it here fignifies bathing or dipping in water only (/).
Thus we have confidered at large Mr. J.'s {tn(c: of the word Baptize, and I hope fufficiently made it appear, that the arguments he has ad- duced to prove that it fignifies to wafn, indiffe- rently, either h-j plunging or fprinkling^ are utterly inconclufive. But, that no doubt may reiriain as to the true meaning of the word, you will give me leave, Sir, with as much brevity as poffibie, to fliew you,
(/) Spencer unlerftands //at^ogo/ here as referring to the vaiious forts of perfons cleanfed, and the occaficris of their c\QdLX\^\x\g.-—Alia efiim erat Pontijicis & Sacerdoium htioy alia Lcnsitarujn^ Ifraelitarum alia, (afc. Spenco- cie Lr-g. Heb. lib. 3, cijfurit. 3. p. J 61. And Giotius, Fa- rias loticncs nofnifiai, quia lotio alia erat Sacerdotumi alia Levitarumj ^V. And Whiiby in loc.
Here I cannot help taking notice of a paffage in Dr» jBentlcy'^s Philtleutherus Lipfienfis, though it be not di- reflly to the purpofe of clearing the fenfe of this text in the Hebrews. Having had occafion to quote a pallage from Plutarch, where he thinks the proper reading is ^Afriia-ixm inftead of o-aCCttliTiuistj he renders ^uTrJir/uae without any hefitation dippings, telling us that both nvord and thing (as a religious rite) was immernoriall^ known in Greece, Phil. Lip. p. 212, 213. 8th edit.
D 4 Se-
§6 TJhe meaning of the zvord Baptlzf.
Secondly, What abundant pofitive evidence we have that the kn(c 1 have given of it is juft, VIZ. that it properly and only fignifies dippingy or fuch wojhing as includes dipping in it.
Here, Sir, I fhall appeal to the bcfl Lexicogra- phers and Criticks, to the pureft Greek Authors, and to the Septuagint Vcrfion of the Old Tefta- ment. And if, befide their united teftimony in favour of my aiTeption, it (hall be found, that it is by no means abfurd thus to render the word in any of the pafTages in the New Teftament, that the circumftances attending the adminiflra- lion of the ordinance, as related in the AtXsy -and the frequent metaphorical allufions to it in the Epiflles, do naturally and perfedly accord with this fenfe of the word; and, more than this, that moft learned men, among the Poedobaptifls themfelves, are clearly of opinion that the an- cient and fcriptural mode of baptizing was by iTimcrfion : if, I fay, thefe points are made good,, k will, I hope, be acknowledged that I have fatis- fadorily proved my affertion.
Conftantine, Stephens, Hedericus, &c. all agree that its proper genuine fenfe is, ia dip^ plunge -t or overwhehn. And though they give it the farther fenfe of wajhingy yet that fenfe is confei^uential of the former, as whatever is dip- ped in the water may be faid to be wafhed.
VoiSus
The me-miing of the 'K.'^^r^ Baptize, ^y
Voffius fays, Though ^a-Zja and ^cf,7r]i^M arc iifed to he iranjiatcdy to dip or plwzge^ and then to dye ; yet the word properly Jignlfies to dip, and only by a meta* lepfis i9 dye^ that is, as dying implies or fuppofes dipping («). It were endlefs to cite authorities from Greek Authors to prove that fuch is the ge- nuine fenfeof the word. A great number Dr. Gale has colle6led, in his anfwer to Mr. Wall, and made very large and pertinent remarks upon them; which, Sir, you will allow m.e to recommend to your perufal. I will, however, here infert two or three inflances I have met with, w^hich may ferve as fpecimens of the reft. Sophocles, in one of his tragedies, introduces Minerva as faying to Ajzx—but tell ?ne thisy haji-thou dipp'd (iiTct^^O thy fp ear in the army of the Greeks [x) ? Polybius,. defcribing a fea- fight between the Carthaginians^ and Romans, wherein the former were conquer- ors, fays — they sunk [idfTrli^ov) many of the vef- feh of the Romans (y). And Plutarch, fpeakino- of the extravagance of Othoj who was after-
(u) VofT. Etymologic, in Baptifm. Etfi autem ^itT?*- k ^xTrli^Bo- turn mergo, vel mergitOj turn thigo, transfeiri foleant j proprie tamen jnergo notat, & /utiju^nfrlaimif lingo.
{x)' CtA\' iKBVO fJLOt (pc^.CiOV
Ajace, V. 95,
Polyb. Hift, lib. i. p. 74.. Edit. Janf. 1670. D 5 wards
5 8 ^he meaning cf the word B ap t ize.
wards a Roman Emperor, that he owed no lefs- than fifty millions of drachmas; fays, that he was QVERWHELMED {'iiCA^rliTfjiiia ) in dtbt^ OTy as we fhould exprefs it ki cur language, it;<7j cvtr head and ea7's in debt (z)^ In the Septuagint Verfioa of the Old Teftameat, and the Apocrypha, which ] have carefully examined, the words occur twenty- five times. In eighteen of thofe iyijiances^ Dr. Gale fays; I think he might have faid twenty, they un^ douhtedly mean to dip> As to the remaining five, two of them refpeil Nebuchadnezzar, whofe cafe we have confidered. That in Ifaiah xxi. 4. clear- ly fignifies to overwhcbn. That in 2 Mac. i. 21,. is befl underftood, and I think can only be. pro- perly underflood, by referring to the primary idea of dipping. And that, Eccleilafficus xxxiv. 25*. as it refpedls the Jewifli purifications, can by no means be proved, as hath already been fhewn,, to exclude the notion, of plimging.
To all this pofitive proof,, which onp fhould' expect would be fatisfadory in mofl cafes, I will; add' the conceflions of feveral learned Pcedo- "baptifts — concefTions, I mean, not. of a generaF kind, that imirierfibn was the ancient fcriptural mode (for of thefe there are a prodigious num- ber) but concefTions as to the true, and proper iBeaning of the word. Calvin' fays, The zvord:
{z) ^ip]KtKi(Tyjxiev ^v^td.S'cdv o^h:\](icttn ^iCa^^iv-- UiV9.V» Plutarch. Galba, Tbra. 3. p. J 504,
1 i<fif>^
The meaning of the word Baptize. 59 it/elf, baptize^ fignifies /^ dip, and it is -plain thai ih£ rite of dipping was ufed by the ancient church [a)^ Beza tells us the vjord ^ayrji^a does not fignfy to wajh^ unlefs by confequence ', for it properly denotes to IMMERSE for the fake of dipping (b), Grotius is clear, in his annotations on Matt. iii. 6. that the propriety of the word^ as well as the places chofen fir the adminiflration of the ordinance^ and the many cllufions of the Jpojlies to it which cannot be referW to fprinkling^ Jhews that it was the cujlom to aditiinifter it by PLUNGING, not by pouring water (c). Salma- fius, who, notwithftanding the advantage which Milton gained over him in the famous difpute concerning Charles the Firft, was filled by the" great Cafaubon ad miraculum doSliis j fays, Bap' tifm is iMMtRSiON, and was formerly celebrated according to the force and meaning of the word (d), Monf. Bofluet, the bifhop of Meaux, in defend- ing the practice of withhol-ding the cup in the
(a) — ipfiim baptlzandi verbiim mergere fignificat, & mergendi ritum veteri ecclefiae obfervatum fuille conftar. Calv. inftit. lib. 4. cap. 15. § 19.
(b) Bezae Annot. in Marc. vii. 4.
(c) Merfatione autem non perfufione agi folitum hunc ritum indicat & vocis pioprietas, & loca ad eum litum dele6la Joh. iii. 23^ A61. viii. 38. & allufiones multae- Apoftoloium, qus ad afperfionem referri non pofTunt, Kom. vi, 3, 4. Col. ii» jz.
(d) hATrlic-fAOf imineifio eft, & fecundum vim ac notio- nem nominis olim celebrabatur. Vid. Wolfii Cuias Phi- i«l. in M:\t. xxviii. 19.
D6 Lord*s
6o fhe ■meaning of the word Baptize.
Lord's fuppcr from the la-ity, urges upon the Re- formed the inconfiftency of their eonducl in op- pofing theRomanifts upon this matter, fince they too pervert the other ordinance by nst plunging: children in the water of haptifm^ as fefus Chrijl was ^hmged in the river Jordan ; and adds, To baptize fignifies /5 PLUNGE, as is granted by all the world [e). To all which teftimonies, that I may not tire you. Sir, I {hall only add that of Dr. Towerfon, who, in his explication of the chatechifm of the church of England, fays, The words ofChriJi are that they. Jhotild baptize or dip ihofe whom they made difciples t9^ Him (for Jo no doubt the zvq/'d^A'TrJti^eiV properly ftgnifies) &c. (f).
Thus, Sir, you fee what pofttlve proof we have that the words ^drTrlco and ^cL7r]i^a do truly and properly fignify to dip^ or fuch wafhing a? includes dipping in it; and what r^afon we have to conclude that this is its only meaning, fmce it cannot be proved, m any one inftance our Au— thor has produced to the contrary, that it ne- ceflarlly figniiies to wajh a little^ or to wajh byt. fpriiikling or pouring water, " Let the impartial,,. *' then, from thefe few remarks, Judge," to ufe Mr. y/,'s words, " whether it be right to afiert,
{e) Saptifer fignfie plonger, Se tout le monde en eft d'accord — Le Traite de Meflire J. B. Bofluet de la com- Bhinion fous les deux efpeces, Partie II. § i & z,
(/J See Towerfon'i Explicat, &c. of Baptifm, p. 20.
'< that
^he meaning of the zvord Baptize. 6i
*' that dipping or planging is the true and only " import of the word Baptifm in the lacred Scrip- " tures ; or, whether fprinkling or pouring is ^' the ancient and fcriptural mode of baptizr " in'Z."
I sm, Sb-,,
¥oufs.
t E T^
r ^2 ]
LETTER V,
Dear S i R,
WE come now to Mr. J.'s fourth chapter, wherein he treats of Baptifms recorded ht the New Tejlatneni^ which are fuppofed^ by feme ^ to have bccfj adminijlered by immerfion, Thefe are the Baptifms of the Jews and our Saviour, by John; and of the Eunuch, by the Evangelift Philip^ Now I prefume, Sir, if the fucred Hiftorians had only told us that [thefe perfons were baptize_d, without mentioning any of the circumftances of their feveral Baptifms, you would have at once concluded from what has been faid in the pre- ceding letter, that they were immerged or plung- ed in water. The meaning of the word has, I hope, been fatisfatSlorily afcertained. Nor can I tell how to imagine it poffible, that when a rite of univerfal and perpetual ufe is to be efla- blifhed in the church, the great Legiflator fhould chufe to exprefs his will in ambiguous terms, and oblige his difciples to have reccurfc to mere circumftances to determine v/hat is his true meaning. If the reafoning of the former letter has any force in it,, this is not the cafe. Our
Lord
Thcr Baptiftns of the, Jews ^ Sec. 6j Lord could not hav^'ufcd a plainer word to con- vey his mind ;. and th-e general practice of tha' whole Chriftian church for thirteen hundred years *, clearly fhews^ that there is not that dif- iicultv in the quedion, which the zealous friends' of afperfion would fain pcrfuade the world there is. So that having fettled the fenfe of the word^ by a kind of proof as faiisfad^ory, I fhould ima- gine, as any reafonable man. can lequire; if that fenfe is genuine, we need not doubt but all the circumftances of the feveral Baptifms reported irr the New TeftairiCnt will- \try well accord with it. This I will be bold to affirm is the Cafe. And if it fhould fo happen that fome of them are cf fuch a kind as, of thenifelves, to determine nothing either way y the argument refpetSting im- merllon fufFers nothing from hence : it flands as firm as ever. — Thus much premifed, let us ex- amine Mr. J.'s remarks on each of the Baptifm.s referred, to in this chapter,
* Dr.Wliiiby fays, that immei'fion ivas religioujly ohferif. ed.byall chnj}ians for thirteen centuries. See his Com- ment, on Rom. vi. 4..
The Bi/hop cf Meaux alfo acknowledges, in the piece fiift now referred to, that it may be made appear by the Ad's of Councils, and by. the ancient Rituals, that for thirteen hundred years Baptiftn nvas thus adminijiered throughout the
rtvbok churchy as far as nxjas poffible. nous pouvous
foire voir par les Aftes des Conciles, & par les anciens Rituals, que trei%e cens ans durant on a baptife de cette Ibrte dans toute rEglife, autant qu'il a ete pofllble.
L. h^
^4 ^^^ Baptifms of the Jews^.
I. As to the manner in which John baptized his difciples, our Author tells us, *' he has not «' yet met with fatisfaclory evidence that it was <t by immerfion *." Left, however, what hap- pens not to be fatisfadlory to him fhould be fo to- others, he is willing to provide againft that emer- gency, by reminding his Readers that " John was *' no chriftian minifter, nor his baptifm a chrif- ** tian ordinance ; and that therefore, if John " did baptize by immerfion, chriftians are not ** from thence obliged to be dipped or plunged ||.'" It Is not at all to our purpofe to enter into the queftion refpeding the intent of John's Baptifm and our Saviour's, nor into that refpe6ling the converts at Ephefus, whether they were re- bap- tized by Paul — queftions which have taken up a long page of our Author's book. It will be fufRcient to obfcrve here, that the word Baptize muft fignify the fame in our Saviour's commiffion to his difciples, as it does in the ftory of John*. If therefore the true and proper meaning of it be, as I have (hewn in the former letter, to immerfe or dip, then whatever difference there might be in the intent or end of the two Baptifms, they muft be both fimilar in regard of the mode of adminiftration. But if Mr. A. will infift, not- withftanding all that has been {iiid, that the meaning of the word is doubtful, and that the queftion as to the mode of Baptifm depends in- tirely on the circumftances attending the admi-
* P. 23. § I. II P- ^4.
X niftration
our Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 6^
niftration of it, as related in Scripture; dill it may be afked, why fhould the fuppofed difFcrence between the intent of John's and of Chrift's Bap*, tifm infer a difference as to the manner of ad- miniftering them ? If John performed the ordi- nance by immerfion, it is furely natural to con-" elude the Apoftles did : nay, if we are not ex- prefsly aflured to the contrary, it is certain they did, fmce the fame word is ufed to defcribe the inftitution in the one cafe, as in the other. And, sifter all, fuch fort of reafoning as this, tending to confound the Baptifms of Chrifl; and John, comes with a very ill grace from that pen, which takes (o much pains to carry us much farther' back than John, and to fix a refemblance be- tween Cb-riftian Baptifm and Jewlfh fprinklings«" — And now let us fee what are our Author's rea-' fons for fuppofing, that John did indeed baptize- by fprinkling. They had need, furely, be very- clear and convincing, fmce the circumftances of the ftory are fo plain, that (befides the confidera* tion of the true and natural meaning of the word Baptize) it is fcarce poiTible, methinks, an un- prejudiced reader of his Bible fhould hefitate a moment at the fa<SI:, that John adminidered the facred rite by immeruon.
His firft reafon is, that *' the mode of fprink- <' ling or pouring water befl agrees with that of
" the
66 ^he Baptifms cf the Jews^
*' the eft'ufion of the fpirit upvon the apoflles on " the day of Pentecoft ; to which he fiippofes *' John refers v.'hen he fays, / baptize you zvith *■' water unto repentance^ but he that cotiieth after me '■' Jhall baptize you with the Holy Ghojt and with " fire *." Tliis fort of reafoning by analogy Mr. A.^ upon fome occafions, does not at all ?p- prove oi\ as particularly when v/e tell him of onr Saviour's- having a Baptifjn to he baptized with 'u)^ ^nd that the mode of immernon applied to his fufferings in that palTage, conveys a far more ftriking idea of them than that of fprinkling. No, fays he, '' the terms are certainly figurative, " and it is not eafy to afcertain their precife meaning ; every hypothefis, therefore, found- ed upon this pafTage, muft be very precarious. A ftrong imagination, or a prejudiced mind, may find an objc6t, and then point out a re- femblance in many particulars, but no reader of judgment and caution will ftrain fo obfcure *' an alluPiOn (o)." And when he is farther told of our being buried with Chriji in Baptifmy which plainly fixes a refemblance between his burial in the fepulchre, and ours in the water by immerfion, he is fo offended with this analogical kind of reafoning, that he will not allow the- Apoftle hath any reference to the death and bu- rial of Chriflj but if we will have it he refers tofoinething, that it muft be to the Chriftian*^s
* Page 25. (n) Luke xii. 50. (0) Page 37.
deathk
cur Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 6y
denth unto fin, and revival to God and righte- culncfs. And ftill perceiving the refeniblance in this laft inftance is as ftrong as in the former, and that therefore this evafion will riot at all avail him J he at once with great addrefs eludes the objedion, by totally obliterating all idea of a bu- rial, and fubftituting in the room of Baptifm, fa reprefented, the vjajhlng of regeneration^ " which, " adds he, the Apoflle fays, he hath poured out " upon us *." Such is our Author^s bitter an- tipathy on fome occafions to allufions, and fuch his fkilful management of them, when they (land •in his way, or give him any the lead diftuib- ance !
Yet, in the inftance before us, this allufive reafoning pleafes him well \ and he thinks he fees fo perfect a refemblance betv/ecn the defcending of fire upon the Apoftles and John's fprinkling his difciples, that it is almoft demonftrable from hence, that fprinkling is the true mode of Bap- tifm. And now, if I had no other method of efcaping the force of this argument, but the ufing Mr. AS weapons, and at the fame time had not the ingenuity to acknowledge my weak- nefs ; I fliould fay to him, ' You miftake, Sir; the allufion here is not to the Baptifm of fire, but to the Baptifm of the Holy Spirit ; and there- fore, as the Baptifm of the Holy Spiiit is calkd
* Page 42—45.
the
62 The Bapliftm of the Jtws^
the wafhing of regeneration, and that wafhing is by bathing or (dipping, John's Baptifm was by dipping.' Thus, Sir, fhould I caft duft be- fore your eyes, as our Author has done, and then triumph in the mighty vi6lory I had gained. Hut thefe are not the weapons of our warfare. If we cannot convince by plain reafoning from the word of God, we will not have recourfe to the little arts of fhuffling and evafion.
The account I have to give of the pafTage m. debate is this ; *' I indeed plunge you in water, *' but He that comes after me fliall plunge you *' in fire; the fire of the Spirit, or fpiritual fire. '' Therein fhall ye be laid, like gold in the fire, " in order to its being refined." My reafons for this interpretation, which is, if I miftake not, abundantly warranted by Scripture, a«d the par^ ticular connexion in which the words ftand ; I fay, my reafons for this interpretation I fhall give by and by, when we come to the clofe of Mr. A.\ feventh chapter, where he more largely difcufles this argument. In the mean while, I afk. Sir, Is there any abfurdity or manifeft impropriety in this explanation of the words ? If, however, Mr. A. will infifl: there is, and that this allufion to fire neceflarily obliges us to conclude that John a<lminiflered Baptifm by fprinkling, he muft be at the pains to defend a much more forced and unnatural interpretation of the plained: hiftorical iacts that could be related, concerning the man- ner
mr Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 69 ner of his baptizing his difciples. This indeed he does attempt ; but before we Come to inquire how he fucceeds, we muft take notice of another prefumptive kind of argument he has to ad- vance in favour of John's having baptized by af- perfion.
<* Indeed it ought to be remembered," he tells us, '' that John was of the line of the priefts, " who had been always ufed to perform their " purifications by fprinkling, and therefore it is " not to be fuppofed he would exchange that " ancient mode for dipping (0).'^ But how ftrange is it that our Author, v/ho wnll not ad- nnit that John's mode of baptizing by immerfion, if that is proved to have been his mode, is obli- gatory on us Chriftians ; that be fliould be fo fond of making the Jewifli fprinklings an ex- ample to John ! The fliort and plain anfwer, however, to this is, that the Jewifh purifications were not by fprinkling only^ or chicfiy j for the main part of their purifications were, as I have already (hewn, by bathing or dipping. So that if John did make the Jewifh cuftoms his pattern, it was more natural to exped he fliould baptize by immerfion than afperfion. And, whereas Mr. A, is at a lofs where to find any exprefs coin- mand John ever received to dip, I refer him to
(0) Pa£;e 26.
John
*-6 "^he Bdpii/ms of the Jews^
John i. 33. where he himfeif tells us that he was Jmt to BAPTIZE iv'iih water.
And now, Sir, let us fee how our Author evades the force of that evidence in. favour of immerfion, which arifes from the plain hiftorical circumftances reUued concerning his B^ptifm. Here I wc^uld obferve, before we proceed, that we do not lay the (liefs of the argurnent upon thefe circumftances: it is enough for us, thnt they exaclly accord with what we have proved to be the true and prc)per meaning of the word Bap- ihe. So that though it were admitted, that the {tn{Q our opponents would put on all or either of the circumlliances of John's Baptifm is a pof- fible one, it will not from thence follow that he brplized by fprinkling. But, I am perfuaded, the fenfe v^q affix to the words, every unpreju- diced reader will acknowledge is the moft pro- bable, natural, and proper. 7'o begin then with the particle 51-; v;hich, Sir, do you think is the mof} plain and obvious rendering" of it, John baptized in Jordan, or with Jordan ? You will at once fay the former, 'i^ake, however, the particle In eiiher fcnfe, it will agree with the idea of immerfion, but not with that of fprinkling ; unlefs you fay the Jews {lood in Jordan, whilft the Baptifl fprinklcd them, which, if that ^NtxQ the mode, was by no means neccflary, " But
" it
cur S^viour^ ajid the Eunuch. 71
<' It fignifieb alfo by (that is, of the inftrument) *« and ^/." Be it To: it is ftill true of John, if he baptized by immerfion, that he baptiztd by or at Jordan. To what purpofe then is al: thk^ arith- metick labour? " It is more than a hundred times *' in the New Teftament rendered at \ and in " an hundred and fifty others, it is tranflated " iviih(Tn).'' And what then ? Mr. ^.'s criticifin will avail him little, till he has been at the far- ther trouble of collecting the number of times it occurs in the other fenfes, and has then caft up the fum total of all, and told us which has the majority. And even then, if it fliould iurn out in favour of at or luith^ he has not proved that John did not baptize In Jordan. But I am a- (hamed, Sir, of this trifling
The places where John baptized, ccme next to be confidered. They were all baptized cf hi w^ fays Mark, in the river Jordan^ confejjing their Jim (0), Now what plain reader, who is un- verfed in the fubtiltics of controverfy, and has no point to maintain at all events, but would conclude from this pafTage that the Jews were dipped in Jordan, as Naaman was of old in the fame river ? But if he could be fuppofed to have a doubt upon the matter, another Evangelifi: would- inftantly remove that doubt, by giving h'nn this plain reafon for John's baptizing alfo in
(m) Pjge ?7. (0) Mark i. 5.
Enon
J- 2 'The Baptifms of the Jeivs^
En on near Salim, hecaufe there was much water there (/). But however it may be with the plain Reader, Mr. A. has ftill his doubts : " He can- •' not, upon an attentive and impartial inquiry " into the feveral circum fiances of the cafe, <' find in it any the leaft evidence of John's bap- :*« tizing by immerfion *." What fhall we do then to convince him? In what plainer lan- guage would he have the ftory related to that end? ' Oh! it fhould not have been faid -ttcAA^^ vJ'cc'i^fy for that may mean " inar.y Jircams or ri- " vukts.'* Well, but this very phrafe the Sep- tuagint Verfion ufes to defcribe the great river Euphrates, or however thofe branches of it, upon v.hich the mighty Babylon flood [k) ; and furcly he will not fay that that river or that thofe branches of it were flreams or rivulets. By this remark Dr. Doddridge confirms the fenfe he gives of the phrafe, telling us that iiothing furely can be ?nore evident than that -TrcAAcf, vS'd^ct fignifies a large quantity of water ^ it being fometimes ufed for the river Euphrates, To which, adds he, / fuppofe there may alfo be an allufion. Rev. xvii, r, &c. luhere the voice of many waters does plainly ftgnify the roaring of a high fea [I). And Dr. Whitby exprefsly applies the reafoning of the Evangelifl to our argument, by thus paraphrafing the words, *' There was much water there ^^"^ in which their
(/) John iii. 23. * P. »?• § 3- {Ji) Jer. li. 13, Septuagint. {}) Sec Doddridge jn loc»
our Saviour^ and the Etmuch. 73 whole bodies ?mght be dipped ; for in this manner only was the Jewijh Baptif?n performed^ by a decent into theivater^ Ads viii. 38. and an afcent out cf it^ V. 39. and a burial in it, Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12 (m)> And if it were farther neceflary to efta- blifli the rendering of the phrafe in our Bibles, I might refer Mr. J. to a fimilar one, Rev. viii. 3. :^v[j.tctiJLctja, 'TTohhA, which furely is beft, and only, to be tranflated much incenfe.
And now, what has our Author to oppofe to this clear circumftantial evidence that John bap- tized by immcrfion ? Why, he gravely tells us, *' in the firft place, that it is no where fald he *' plunged any one of his difcip.les in thefe wa- *' ters [n) j though we are tv/ice told he did in the very paflage he refers to: which he will find to be the fadt, if he will confult the pafTage, and calmly confider the reafoning of the Letter pre- ceding this. — But, you will afk him perhaps, if he did not plunge his difciples in t^he water, why is it faid he chofe this place above others becaufe there was much water there? Mr. y/.'s ingenuity at once fupplies an -cinfwer, " He ** might take the hint for baptizing" in this place preferable to others, " from an order " given to the priefls of old, who were com- *' manded to take the unclean leper to a ru.'i- " ning water, and there fprinkle upon him
(w) See V/hltby in loc. (;/) Page 27.
E '* that
47 '^^^ Bciptifms of the Jezvs^
*' that was to be cleanfed from his leprofy fcven *' times," Lev. xiv. 4 — 7. (0) But, pray Sir, why may not I be ingenious too ? and fay, that he might take the hint for immerfing his difci- ples, from the eighth verfe of that very context he refers to, where the leper is required io woJ]:> himfelf in water. And fince Naaman was a leper, and was healed of his leprofy by dipping in Jor- dan, why may not I farther fuppofe, that John from hence took tivo hints^ the one of the place Jordan, and the other of the adion dipping? But, if iheje fuppolitions will not fupply the place of folid argument, Mr. A, has others ; " John would naturally chufe a fituation the *' moft proper for the accommodation of his *' hearers." Now " Enon's many ftreams would *' not only afford an agreeable refrefhrnent, but '* be indifpenfably neceffary to this great multi- " tude in fo warm a climate, efpecially in the " fummer feafon f/>)." And why may not I again fet my invention on the ftretch, and fay, that as it was a warm climate, and a hot and fultry feafon, John might think it more con- ducive to the health and refrefhment of his hear- ers to bathe them in the water, and therefore preferred this mode to fprinkling? But, I hope, you will excufe my thus imitating the unhal- lowed arts of fophiflry, though it be only with a view to expofe them.
(0) Page Z7, 28. (f>) Ibid.
To
our Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 75
To return: you will fay, perhaps, our Author has quite loft fight of the plain end, for which, and for which aloney the Evangelift mentions John's having baptized in Enon. No, Sir, he has not. That place Mr. A. tells us he the ra- ther chofe, as it enabled him " the more expe- " ditioufly to baptize his followers by pouring '' water upon them {q)" But furely the reafon, in regard both of convenience and expedition, is much ftronger in fi^vour of immerfion than fprink- ling. And as to what he adds, of " the high " improbability of his baptizing this vaft multi- '' tude by immerfion j of modefly's forbidding *' his plunging them all naked ; and of the great " unlikelihood of their having proper changes of '' apparel with them (r) ;" I reply — We are no where told, that it was a fevv days or a hw weeks only,thatJohn was thus employed baptizing in the Avildcrnefs: — he might im>mcrfe the people with very near a^ little expence of time, if not trou- ble, as fprinkle them ; efpecially as Mr. A. is of opinion he had " no utcnfils with him *' for that purpofe: — Luke fays, the multitude came forth to be baptized of him (;) ; fo that their fubmiffion to this facred rite, was not fuch a, furprize upon them as our Author would indnuate : — and as tQ the buUnefs of clothes, they might eafily be fur- nifhed with them, as bathing was much ufed among the Jews j and the Ellenes, as Jofephus
, (T^'P^ge 28» (r) Page 29. {s) Luke iii. 7.
■ K 2 repo rt.<
76 I'he Biiptifms oj the Jews^
reports, every day before dinner drefTed them- Iclves in a linen habit, and fo vvafhed their bodies in water (i). Thefe things confidered, there does not appear to be that diiEculty in the matter Mr. A, would infinuate. And now, Sir, t^U me, whether the ingenious torture to which our Author, has put this plain pafTage, John hapiized in Enon near Salim^ becaufe there was much water there^ has any the leaft efFedl to reconcile you to the {ti\(Q he would affix to it, or to the practice of aiperfion to which he would fiiin accommo- date it? We proceed,
2. To Mr.y/.'s obfervations on our Saviour's Baptlfm by John *. I am glad. Sir, you are not likely to be detained long here, as 1 think your patience mufl already have been fufficiently tried with the trifling objedions urged under the for* mer head. The facred Hiftorlan informs us, that yefus^ when He was baptized^ went up Jlraight- way out of the water^ that is out of Jordan [t]. From whence you and I Ihould be apt to infer, that He was /« Jordan, and that He was plunged in it too, fince that, as I have ihewn, is the true and proper meaning of the word baptize. But our Author, throwing the word baptize out of the queftion, makes the whole argu- ment in favour of immerfic n to reft upon the phrafe of our Saviour's coming up out of Jordan,
(^) As Nve have feen p. 29. of thefe Le;ter8. ♦ P. 30. § 4.. (/) Mat. ill. 16.
which
cur Saviour^ and the Eunuch, 7 7
which he tells us will not admit of fo " \\'^{\y " an inference," as that He was plunged in It (u). But, I know not who. Sir, fays that his coming out of the water fignifies, or even necefiarily in- fers, his being plunged in it. It is enough for us that his coming out of it proves that He was in it; and that if He was in it, it muft have been for the purpofe the Evangelift had mentioned of his being baptized, that is, immerfed in it. The difpute therefore turns upon the meaning of the phrafe c?.viCy\ a.nro He went up out of: and yet there can be no juft reafon afligned for find- ing fault with the fenfe our Tranflators have given this plain phrafe, except that of its mani- feftly favouring the idea of immerfion. Left, however, what he had to fay upon the matter fhould not fatisfy his Readers, Mr. A, has pru- dently diverted their attention for a while to an- other account of our Saviour's Baptifm, which better fuits his purpofe than that of the infpirci Hiftorian, and of which, as he has thrown it into a note, I fhall take notice below {^x). Well,
but
(«) Page 30.
(jf) The ftory Mr. A. telh "S that «' the Lord Jefus ** Cbrtfi entered into the fea^ and John iv'iib all bumdity ** baptixed Him 'VJith bis band, and njjafied Him, by caji~ *' ing neater on bis bead;"' this ilory, I fay, is certainly ve? y much to our Author's puipol'e. It wants only one little ciicumftance to render it decifive in the prefent debate, and that is, authenticity. I won't pretend to fny, that there is no " ancient eaflern hiftory of Chrill, written in *♦ Perficj" but I do not know it, nor can I get any ac- E 3 count
7 S "The Baptifm of the Jews^
but what is the meaning of the phrafe? «< ft *' is ufed, fa\'s Mr. A. to defcribe his return *' from the water-fide." Not that he takes AviCn to fignify he returned: he admits that it fignifies his afcendhig or corning up; but would fain divert the word' from any reference it niight feem to have to our Saviour's having been in the water. To this purpofe he tells us, " Jordan like other " rivers, probably (he might have faid, certain- *' ly) rnn in the lower ground." And what then? Does this prove that our Lord was only at the brim of Jordan, and not in it? What- ever river He had been in, it would have been proper to defcribe his coming out of it by this
count of it from the books and friends I have confulted. If however there be fuch a hiftory, Mr. A. will do well to favour the Chriltian world with an account of it. Till then, whatever weight his fiory may have with the weak and credulous, he can't wonder that others confider it in the light of one of thofe old wives fables, which the Apo- file exhorts Timothy to rejeft.
As to the word %^^'^\ agnmedh {r\o{ anada zs M\\ A. has if^ ufed in the Syriac and Arabic gofpel for baptizing} as ftrong an inference may be drawn from it in favoui* of immerfion, as of afperfion. The word is derived from tlie Hebrew lOp ftetit, and is found, when put for baptiz- ing, in Aphel; fo that its proper fignlfication is to make or caiife to Jiand. And whether the making a perlbn to Itaiul, may not as properly be underftood to refer to the raifing him up in the water when immerfed in it, as to ** the fetting hiin upright in a font," in order to his having water poured upon him, I leave any one to judge.
word
our Saviour^ and the Eunuch, 79 v/ord rtfs^rt ; and that is fufHcient for us. " But "' we know, fays he, .that there are hills near *' Jordan." So then, according to Mr. y/, the facred Hiftorian meant to inform us, that when Chrift was baptized He went up the hills near Jordan. And what follows a verfe or two after I Why, He was led up^ that is, from thefe hills, into the wildernefs. I can readily enough agree with our Author, that "Jordan, like other rivers, *' probably ran in the lower ground ;" but am at :\. lofs, I acknowledge, to conceive with the like eafe of a wildernefs fituated above hills. Such pains do men take to confound the plaineft fenfe, in order to ferve a purpofe ! — But though Mr. A. c-an make nothing of the verb etrs^w, yet he thinks he can of the prepofition ^j^rc " That, he tells us, in '* fcores of paflages in the New Tellament, fig- *' nifies no more than /r*w." To prove this affertion, which no one will difpute, he produces four or five inflances, and thofe too, that they may have the greater efFecfV, from the Evangel ift Matthew himfelf. But will thefe, or a fcore befides, prove that (tTc^ in the connexion it here flands, does not fignify cut of? Or if they will (which yet he does not pretend to afTert) I afk, by what other particle, except this of ^^to, or sk, which he afterwards treats in much the fame manner, the Evangelift could convey the idea of our Lord's coming cut cf iho, water, if He really was in it, as we fay, and every plain Reader E 4 would
So The Baptifms of the Jevjs^
would fuppofc? And now it remains that we
confider,
3. The remarks cur Author has to make on the Baptifm of the Eunuch by Philip *. They went Mozvn, fays the facred Hiftorlan, both into the wa- ter^ both Philip aad the Eunuch^ and be baptized him (y). We fay, and fay very naturally upon this pafTage, that as the word baptize fignifies to immerle; and as, in order to a perfon's being im- Hierfed, the adminiflrator and the fubjedt muffc both go into the water: {o the plain faft before us exadly accords with this idea of the inftitu- tution. All that Mr. y^. however can gather from the ftory is, '* that they went to the water, *' and that Philip baptized the Eunuch. He *' cannot find one word of the manner in which '* he baptized him, whether by dipping him in ** the water, or pouring the water upon him.'* But, though our Author is unwilling to acknow- ledge that baptizing fignifies immerfmg; yet he thinks the adion of going into the water looks that way. His objedl therefore is, to make the prepo- fition eii fignify to^ inflead oi' into. But, before he comes to give his reafons for this amendment of our tranflation, his bufmefs is to provide f^gainft theconfequence of failing in the attempt. To that end he tells us, '* that they might both <' go into the water without being, either of
•» Page^3s. § 5. (j>) Aas viii. 38.
" them,
our Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 8 1
" them, plunged in it:" and '* that if the ex- " prefTion of their going down into the water " necefTarily includes dipping them; Philip was *' dipped as well as the Eunuch ; for what is faid *' of one is faid of both ||." But what unaccount- able trifling is all this ! Mr. A. furely is not feri- ous! except in his wifh to amufe and confound his Reader. What Baptift ever faid, or thought, that perfons cannot go into the water without being plunged in it? or, that the expreffion of going down into the water neceflarily includes dipping in it? All they fay is, that if Philip and the Eunuch went into the water, it mud be for fome purpofe ; and that that of the former's immerfing the latter, is much more natural and feafible than that of his taking up water and pouring it upon him : becaufe this might as v/ell be done without their going into the water, that could not. Our Author then might have fpared his confequence, ^' that Philip and the Eunuch *' muft have been both dipped." To fhew him, however, more clearly the ridiculous abfurdity both of his premifes and his confequence, I will alk htm what be would have been apt to fay, if a Baptift had thus reafoned with him? " Phi- lip, Sir, and the Eunuch might go to the water, without having the water fprinkled on them : if the exprelTion of their going down to the water necefTarily implies fprinkling^ then Philip was fprinkled as well as the Eunuch."
e P^ge 33.
E 5 And
8 2 The Baptifms of the Jews^
And now, to prove that en fhould here be rendered io, he cites a long train of paflages wherein it fometimes fignifies io^ fometimes /w, fometimes for, and fometimes towards. And what is the refult of all this learned criticifm ? The utmoft it proves is this, that it may fignify to, not that it w«/?. That it mi^ he does not pretend, and even that it may is fcarce pAbable, fince by giving it that rendering we make the Evangelift fay, Th^y came to a certain water^ and then prefently, they went down io it.
As to the latter part of the ftory, when they were come up out of the water ^ Mr. A. reafons after much the fame manner he had done before concerning our Saviour's Baptifm. Left there- fore, in the iirft place, the word ctvc^wdcLv they zvere come lip, fliould feem at all to favour the abfurd practice of immerfion, he has recourfe, as under the former head, to the geography of the country. '' Travellers and hiftorians, fays *' he, inform us, that this ftream was only a " fmall rivulet in a hilly country, which even " lower down is fometimes dried up in fummer, *' and the place at which Philip baptized the *' Eunuch is thought to have been at the foot *' of a mountain which is near its fource." But why all this trouble? If he had infifted, as before, that ftreams as well as rivers flow in channels below the ground on either fide of them ;
and
our Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 83
and that therefore he who had been at the edge of the ftream, when he returned from it, might be faid to come up, we fhould not have difputed the matter with him. But fmce he is fond of fixing this ftream at the foot of a mountain which is near its fource, and fo fuppofes them to have defcended from the mountain and then to have afcended it again; one would be apt to afk, why they did not ftop at the fource, and perform the ceremony there, inftead of giving themfelves the trouble of going down to the brook in the bottom, and then climbing up the precipice again. Such, however, is the ingeni- ous labour to which an unwillingnefs to admit a plain and eafy fa6l expofes men! And now, having told us that their coming up had no refpedt to their having been in the water, his next con- cern is to prove, what no one has ever denied, tl^at the prepofition g>t fometimes fignifiesyr^w as well as out of. But does it thence follow that out of is not the proper rendering of the particle here? Or if he is of opinion that neither efTs-o nor s^, do, in the connexion we have been confidering, fulHciently convey the idea for which we con- tend, he'll do well to tell us what Greek particle will.
Thus, Sir, I have confidered our Author's ob-
fervations upon the Baptifm of the Jews, of our
Saviour, and of Philip. Thefe fa6ls are related
E 6 in
§4 ^he Bapiifms of the Jews Sec.
in fo fimple and artlefs a manner, as are indeed all the narratives of the Bible, that I am per- fwaded no plain unprejudiced man can miftake them. Nor fhould I hefitate a moment to leave the decifion of the queftion refpe£ting immerfion to the fentence of fuch a perfon. I am confident he would tell us, at the very firft reading, that he cannot find any one circumftance at all lead- ing to the idea of fprinkling; whereas they all of them exadlly accord with that of immerfion. Nor fhall I in this opinion of mine be deemed hafty or prefumptuous by the candid Reader, fince the greater part of the mofl learned Pcedo- baptifis, I had almoft faid all, have frankly ac- knowledged that John the Baptift and the Apo- ftles did moft unqueftionably baptize after this manner.
I am.
Sir, to*
L E T^
C «5 ]
LETTER VI.
Dear S i r,
OU R Author's fifth chapter is taken up,, as he tells us in the title of it, with the ota^ mlnation of texts, in whieh fome fuppofe there are al" lujions to immerfion, as the original mode of baptizing^ The firft he mentions is that in the Corinthians relating to the Ifraclites, who are faid to have been baptized unto Mofes in the cloud and in the fea. But, as that had been taken notice of in the third chapter (where alfo I have remarked upon it) he declines any farther confideration of it here. The three or four remaining pafTages,. on which he chufes to infift particularly, we fliall examine in the order he has placed them,
I. The firft is that in Luke xii. 50. where our Lord fays to his difciples, / have a Baptifm /* he baptized with^ and hovj am I Jlraiined till it be accomplijhed I There can be no doubt but our Saviour had a view in thefe words to his ap- proaching fufferings, and that He defigned to ex- prefs the greatnefs and pungency of them by this allullon to Baptifm. It is natural therefore to 3 inquire
26 Scriptural AUufions
inquire what likenefs there is between BaptiTm and fufFering, or between the ftate of one bap- tized and that which Chrift was in when under his laft grievous and complicated forrowis. Now that mode of Baptifm for which we contend, fixes a ftriking refemblance between the one and the other, as every one upon the lead reflexion muft acknowledge. " As he who is baptized is jmmerfed in water, fo fhall I be plunged in fuf- ferings — be fo overwhelmed with them that no part, neither foul nor body, fhall be exempted from pain and mifery," Whereas, if we fup- pofe fprinkling to be the mode of Baptifm re- fer'd to, the defcription will lofe much of its energy, and inftantly become faint and languid, though not (Iri^lly abfurd and improper. '' As he who is baptized hath water fprinkled or poured ijpon him, fo fliall I have affli(flion and forrow fprinkled or poured upon Me." From the juft- nefs of the allufion therefore in the former view of it, we infer that this paflage furnifhes a pro- bable collateral evidence, that Baptifm was an- ciently adminiftered by immerfion. Thus we reafon upon the text, without laying any other llrefs upon it, than the nature of all allufive or metaphorical language will warrant.
But Mr. A. inftead of attempting to take ofF the force of this reafoning, by fhcwing the re- femblance there is between afperfion and fufFer-
to Immerfion co'nfidered. 2y
ing, or by giving us fome other fenfe of the text, that might better agree with the figurative lan- guage of it than that which the Baptifts main- tain; inftead of this, I fay, which was furely his proper bufinef?, he feems to aim at nothing but to confound his readers. He tells us, firft of all, that our Lord " could not refer to his being *' baptized of John, as He fpoke thefe words " long after that event (a)." But who, I pray, ever faid or thought He did ? If, however, he means by this to infinuate, that He might poUi- bly be baptized a fccond time, and that He had his eye in thefe v/ords to that Baptifm; he is not indeed the firft that has reafoned in that way; for Epiphanius tells us of fome fuch people in his time, and who of confequence would have fligmatized our Saviour with the opprobrious name of Anabaptift, which has been as unjuftly given to many of his real difciples. He admits however that " our Lord fpeaks of fcenes then *' before Him ; but whether in his life or at his *' death, he is not certain. Indeed there was '' nothing, as he apprehends, in the mode of bis " fufFerings, either in the garden of Gethfe- " mane, at the bar of Pilate, or when He was " lifted up upon the crofs, that refembled the " mode of plunging. Nor can he abfolutely " fay that his thoughts were confined merely to " thofe tranfadtions through which He was to
(^) P^ 37.
*' pafs
S^B Scriptural AUufions
•' pafo before his abafement in the grave [b),^'' So that one (hould fuppofe Mr. A. is of opinion, his thoughts extended beyond death to the grave j and in that cafe, that he meant to fix a refem- blance between Baptifin and his burial: a fenfe very favourable to immerfion ; and for which the Baptifts are much obliged to our Author, it never having, I dare fay, entered into the heads of any of them. But why all thefe pains, as I faid before, to make fo beautiful and ftriking a pafiage obfcure, unlefs it be to amufe and con- found? Let us now proceed,
2. To the fecond allufive text Mr. A. quotes, *' the argum.ent from which in favour of im- *' merfion," he tells us, " is equally groundlefs *' with the former.'* The words are in i Pet. iii. 20, 21. — the hng-fujfering cf God waked in the days tf Noah^ while the ark was a preparing, wherein fezv^ that is, eight fouls, were faved by water. The like figure whereunto, even Baptifm, doth alfo now fave us (not the putting away of the filth of the flejh, but the anfwer of a good confcience towards God) by the refurre^ion of Jefus ChrijL
There is, I acknowledge, a difficulty in fixing the precife meaning af this pafTage. Yet I am perfuaded we {hall find upon examination, that there is fuch an allufion in it to the primitive
{h) Ibid,
mode
to Immerfion conjidered, 89
mode or Baptifm as affords a very probable evi- dence in favour of immerfion. It is agreed on all hands that Baptifm is here fpokcn of as sti']/- TUTTci' an antitype, that is, a fgure which has refpect to fomethhig that went before. But the queftion is, what that type is, to which Bap- tifm is faid to be an antitype. It cannot be the ark^ becauTe that being of the feminine gender, the relrtive Z will not agree with it. Nor is it likely it fhould be water ^ bccaufe, thou/^h ^<^A\ci is the immediate antecedent, it is fcarce proper to fay of Baptifm that i: is the frgur^ of water, or the antitype to it. I therefore fuppofe that the relative tj has tb.e wholt; preceding fenience for its antecedent. So that Baptifm, as compre- hending the fubjeift, the mode, and the intent of the inftitution; is to be conlidered here as the antitype to that event which the Apof^le had been relating, viz. hjah and his family'' s being faved hi the ark by water. The bufinels is there- fore to fix the refemblance between the type and the antitype. And this is, in every particular, fo natural, that no one can be at a lofs to per- ceive it. As Noah and his family were all the happy partakers of that great temporal falvation ; fo are believers and their fpiritual feed all the happy partakers of this great fpiritual falvation by Jefus Chrifl. As Noah and his family were plunged in the waters of the flood; fo areChrif- tians in the waters of Baptifm. And as Noah
and
9C^ . Scriptural Alli'Jlons .
and his family were faved in water by being in the ark ; fo Chriftians are faved by Baptifm, not as Baptifm has any efficacy in itfelf to fave them, but folely as it hath a reference to the re- furreftion of Jefus Chrift from the dead, of which it is a figure, and in which they exprefs their faith by being baptized. To this purpofe the Apoftle particularly obferves, that Bapiifm doth now fave us^ by the reftirreSiion of ^fefiis ChriJ}. P'or the intervening words betv/een in and by are a paren- .thefis, as our Tranflators have very properly de- fcribed them. Now if this be the fenfe of the text, and I prefume it is the natural and proper fenfe of it ; our Author has an anfv.'er to the queftion he puts with an air of triumph, " with *' what juftice can this pafTage be produced as " alluding to the mode of baptizing by immer* " fion."
But what is the light in which Mr. A. views the words ? He tells us " the refemblance lies *' between the ark and the ordinance of Bap- " tifm." But the ark cannot, as I have fhewn by the con(}ru6lion of the words, be the type of which Baptifm is faid to be the antitype. Nor is it true that " the Apoftle only afierts that " Baptifm refembles the ark in this circumftance, " that it faves.'' For the relative Z has a refer- ence, not to the ark only, or to the water only, or to their being faved in the ark only, but, to
the
to Immerfion confidereH, 91
the whole fentence, that is, to all thefe ideas united. So that Baptifm is the antitype to Noah and his family's being faved in the ark by water. The refembhince therefore extends farther than • merely to the faving tendency ofloth^ that is, of the ark and oi baptifm. And as to the fenfe in which Baptifm is faid to fave itSy I will leave it with the impartial unbiaffed Reader to determine, which account of the matter beft agrees with the figurative language of the text, Mr. AJ's or mine. He fays, *' Baptifm faves us, as a folemn token " of our admiffion into that covenant, which " engages for our prefervation here, and a (late *' of compleat and everlafting happinefs here- *' after, through Jefus Chrift." I fay, it faves us, as by our being plunged in the water and raifed up out of it, much after the fame manner that Noah and his family were, we exprefs our faith in the death, burial, and refurredtion of the Lord Jefus Chrift, and our hope of eternal fal- vation thereby. This fenfe is, I think, the more proper, as there is a likenefs not only between the ftate of one baptized and that of Noah in the ark; but alfo between our Baptifm and the burial and refurre£lion of Chrid-, with which likewife it feems as if the Apoftle defigned to compare it, by faying exprefbly that Baptifm faves us by the rfurrc^iion of Jefus Chrijl {c). Whe- ther,.
(r) Sir Norton Knntcbbul), in his annotations on this pafijge, fjys, '« — there was netd of feme fignificant type
or
92 Scriptural Alltifions
ther, however, this was or was not his intention, fuch comparifon is very clearly and ftrongly drawn, as we fhall quickly fee, in the epiflle to the Romans.
And now it remains that I take fome notice of the latter part of the words, not the putting away of the filth of the fiejh^ hut the anfvcer of a good confcience towards GocL Here the fenfe is fo plain that one would think it could not be per- verted : yet Mr. A, has given it fuch an ingeni- ous turn, as at once to weaken the former part of the verfe, by depriving it of any connexion with the rejurre£iion cf Jefus Chrtji -, and at the fame time totally to fupprefs, in the words them- felves, a fentiment which he faw to be extremely
** or figure, which might make To impenetrable a notion (he means the refurreelion of Chrift, whereby He was de- clared to be the Son of Goo) " familiar and perceptible ** to the fenfe of men; to which purpofe nothing feemed *' more fit and eafv, in the wildom of God, than the ** burying our bodies in water by haptifm, from whence *^ they receive an immpdiate refuneftion. Sjiha wemay ** pofitively affirm, that Baptifm is properly and folely a *' type of tne refurreftlon. And to tliis truth do give *' their fuffrage the Apollles, Fatheis, Schoolmen, almoft ** all interpretei-s ancient and modern, and even our " EngliHi church it^'elf, it's judgment being manifeft in " the Rubrick of the Common-Praye**, which enjoins ** the d'pping of infants in Baptifm, allowing only in ** fome Cciles the liberty of fprinkling or perfufion." And fo he goes on to produce his teflimonies.
ufi-
to Immerfwn confidend. g^
unfavourable to Pcedobaptifm. Before we lay open this device of our Author's, let me explain^ in a word or two, the Apoflle's true meaning, if indeed it needs explanation. Having told us that Baptifm faves us, left that expreflion (hould be mifunderftood, or we fhould be tempted to lay ati undue ftrefs upon the inftitutlon, he re^ minds us that // is 710 1 the putting away of the filth of the flejh^ it does not fave by any influence it may have to cleanfe from bodily or typical defile- . ment; but as /V /i the anfwer of a good confctence towards God, as it is fubmitted to in obedience to the divine command, and as a folemn decla- ration of our faith in Chrifl:, Now, this being the obvious meaning of the words, it is natural to infer from the former claufe, that immerfioa was probably the primitive mode of baptizing;, as the filth of the flefh is much more properly and effedually put away by this kind of wafti- ing than by fprinkling (d) : and from the lat- ter, that infants are not the fit fubjedls of Baptifm, as they are incapable of fubmitting to it in obedience to the didates of confcience,
{d) Euftathius, in his notes on Homer, Odyff. ••' v. 170. vvliere Eyrynome advifes Penelope " to leave off *' lamenting, ivaJJ/mg her bcdj, and anointing her face," hath a note wherein he explains the ufe of fuch vvafliing the body by the fame words the Apoftle here ufes; it is, fays he, aTcSsT.'xet' fxiv gvnt — unicvy a means to cleanfe th^; body f, oai filih.
But
94 Scriptural Allufiom
But our Author, while he properly enough ob- ferves on the flrft part of the fentence, that the Apoftle " teaches us here that Baptlftn does not *' fave as a mere external form of purity," takes care to refer us in a note to the account he had given, in the third chapter, of the Jewifh purifi- cations by fprinkling ; fo intimating that this putting away of the filth of the flefh was by afperfion, and that therefore this phrafe is not to be improved into an argument in favour of immcrlion. To which the fliort reply is, that thofe purifications were, as I have (hewn, chiefly by bathing. — And as to the latter part of the fentence; in order to elude the objedblon arifing from thence to the baptizing infants, he gives us this flrange interpretation of it, " that Baptifm " does not fave, unlefs it be accompanied with *' the fan£lification of the Spirit, that may en- *' able us, with a good confcience towards God, <' to give an anfwer to thofe who afk a reafon " of the hope that is in us, through the refur- " re6tion of Jefus Chrift." So, you fee, he in- genioufly detaches the phrafe, hy the refurre^lion of Jefus Chrifi^ from the former part of the verfc, to which it can only with propriety belong; and makes the arfiver of a good confcience towards God to have no reference to Baptifm, but only to mean that the fandification of the Spirit (which may or may not follow Baptifm) will enable a man to give a reafon of his hope through the 6 refur-
to Immerjicn confidered, p^
refurre6lIon of Jefus Cbrift.— But, is Mr. A, himfelf fatisfied with this expofition of the text? — If not, how can he expect it will be fatis- fadlory to any fmcere inquirer after the truth ?
3. The next pafTage to be confidered is that in Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. compared with a fimilar pafTage, Col. ii. 12. Know ye noty that fo many of us OS were baptized into Jefus Chrifl^ were baptized into his death? &c. The Apoftle's view in thefe words is to perfuade the Romans to a holy life and converfation. To that end he reminds them of their Baptifm, and of thofe great truths which that inftitution is adapted to exprefs, and to which, by being baptized, they had declared their firm afTent; from all which confiderations he argues their perfonal obligations to obedience. He, firft of all, appeals to the general idea they could not but have of the nature and intent of the ordinance : Know ye not that as many as were baptized into Chrift^ as were thus initiated into his religion; were baptized into his deaths did by Baptifm profefs their faith in his death, and their refolutlon to conform to the fpiritual mean- in2; of it. So he goes on to a more particular de- fcription of the manner in which they were bap- tized, as ftrongly expreifive of thefe great truths, and of the fenfe they muft have felt of their im- portance. We are buried with Him {e) by or thro''
(e) 'S.vv{ja(^iiiMV'
^6 . Scriptural Allufions
(//.rt) Baptifniy^nd in Baptlfm (as it is in the Co- loffians) into death: as He being dead was bu- ried, fo we in this ordinance are buried with Him. And like as [vc^^^) He was raifed up from the dcad^ fo we are raifed up with Him, or (as in the Coloflians) we are in Eaptifei rifen ipiih Him (f). And from hence he inters their obli- gation, having been planted together in the likenefs ef bis deaths to he alfo in the likenefs of his refur^ re^ian^ and to "xalk in ncwnefs cf life.
Now furely a plain Reader would be apt to conclude from thefe words, that the Apoftle had a reference to the manner in which Baptifm was adminiftered, and the refemblance there mufl have been between that inftitution, and the bu- rial and refurreclion of Chrift. And what mode muft that be, which refembles a burial and re- furrechion, but immerfion? This idea, methinks, the paflage would naturally fuggeft to fuch a pen'on, without the sid of " a ftrong imagination '• or a prejudiced mind;" nay "a Reader of '' judgment and caution'* might apprehend this, without the danger of being charged with ♦' ftraining an obfcure allufion f^J." But our . Author is of another mind. " The fuppofition," he tells us, " that Paul alludes here to immeriion " in Baptifm, as bearing a refemblance to the *' burial and refurrection of Chrift, is entirely
(f) 2vyn>tj5»75. (g) P. 37-
*• founded
ta Immerfion covfidered, 97
'' f unded in a miftaken interpretation of the '' pafiage. — Baptifm does not fignify the humi- " iiation of Chrift in the grave, and his rifing *» again — it does not figure any fcenes through " which our Redeemer palled (/?)." If Bap- tifm then has no reference here to the death and refurreclion of Chrift, and bears no refcir.- blance, in the Apoflle's intention, to thofe events ; to what does it refer ? Mr. A. tells us, to " the *' Chriftian's de«th unto fm, and revival to God *' and righteoufnefs ;" and he adds, that the Apoftle " reprefcnts Baptifm as a type or token '* of that (i),'* Be it fo. What is the ccnfe- quence? Why, it follov/s from his own ac- count of Baptifm, as a type or token of the Chriftian's death to fm and reYiv^l to righteouf- nefs, that it is only properly adminiTEered by immerfion; for I'arely Baptism by afpcrficn is no type or token of a perfon's death and refur- rection. But Mr. A. aware, as it fhould feem, of this confequence, i-flantly converts the idea of a death and revival into that of *' a chanse " efFected by the^vafhing of regeneration, which," adds he (ftrongly marking the word by giving it in the original) " He halh Jhed ( J?'/S£t J poured *' out on us {k)y — Ar i fo he not only fets afide the idea of immerfion in Baptifm, but fubftitutes that of fprinkling or pouring in its rcom. But furely our Author might have been content with
{h) P. 44, 45. (/; p. 4j. (k) P. 45.
F ex-
^S ■ Scriptural Allujtons
expunging the former idea, without obtruding upon his Reader the latter; efpecially in this connexion, fince he had told us, a few lines before, that " the Apoftle does not refer," in the pafiage under confideration, '* to any mode «' of adminiftering the ordinance.'* So infenfi- bly, to fay the beft of it, are men betrayed into the fubtilties of falfe reafoning, when once thro* prejudice they lofe fight of the plain truth!
Indeed, Sir, I have been at a lofs thoroughly to comprehend Mr. J.'*s meaning. Sometimes I have ilrongly apprehended, that he does not allow Baptifm to partake of the nature of a ilgn, figure, or reprefentation at all ; and that he means, upon that principle, to overthrow the notion of an allufion to immerfion in the text. But this is fo abfurd an opinion, and fo directly contra- dicted by himfelf, in fome pafTages I have juft quoted, that I fuppofe he does not chufe to avow it. Yet, his reafoning has not the leaft vippear- ance of plaufibility in it, unlefs the idea of Bap- tifm's being a fign or figure is intirely thrown out of this pafTage. But fince it evidently is :i fign, as is alfo the other pofitive inftitution the Lord's Supper; by what authority does our Au- thor fet afide this idea of it here ? Or how can he expe£l to convince a man of common under- (landing, that, placed as it is in this connexion with the death, burial, and refurredlion of Chrift, J. •. ' " and
to Immerfwn con/td^red, '"9^
and with our death to fin, and revival to rlghteouf- ncis, it h^js .110 reference at all to immerfion? Nor is it any objection to a refemblance between Baptifm and our Saviour's death, 5cc. that Bap- tifin has a ftill farther refemblance to our death ^c. both in a natural and fpiritual fenfe. On the contrary, this enlarged view of the inftitu- tioH- adds a flill farther beauty and propriety to that mode of adminiftration for which we are contending. — As to Mr. A.'s cbjet£^ion to our fenfe of the text, as if it *' made the two diftindt " pofitive inftitutions of the gofpel interfere with " one another ("/j;" it is fo trifling that it fcarce deferves an anfwer. What ! becaufe Baptifin and the Lord's Supper have a reference to thd fame facfls and docSlrines, do they therefore fo clafli with each other as to difturb their order, or any way defeat their utility? With very near the fame propriety he might have told us, that we fhould not ofter thankfgiving to God in prayer, becaufe that is the fpecial or main bufinefs of finging. But, 1 afk, does not our Author him- felf make the two inftitutions inteifere, when he tells us, " that Baptiim is a token of the appli- *' cation of Chrift's blood for our juilifica- *' tion (/«)."— and " a token of thxit- redemption " which He has obtained for us by iiis precious '* blood («) ? And as to the obfer-vation which follows, " that if Bapjifm be a rnvm-^rial oV
(I) P. 42. (w) P. 52. (^u) P. ^
F 2.
lOO Scriptural Allufwns
*' Chrift's burial and rcfurre6lion, it fhould be " adminiftered after the ordinance of his Supper, " wRich celebrates his death, and ihould be re- *' peated as often as that is repeated [o) \* it is of the fame trifling nature with the former. If, however, it had any weight in it, it would deftroy the force of the preceding objection, fmce it fuppofes the two inftitutions to refer to chffercnt fadb, and fo in no fenfe to interfere with each other. But, as all pofitive inftitutions and the circumflances of them muft depend intirely on the will of the Legiflator, it is enough for us that our Saviour has dircded Baptifm to be ad- nviniftered but once, and the Lord's Supper to be frequently repeated. And though the former has refpecl to the death, burial, and refurrc£lion of Chrift, as well as the latter; yet Baptifm has .evidently a more peculiar fitnefs in it to exprcfs a perfon's initiation into the profefllon of the gofpel, than the Lord's Supper,
And now. Sir, I perfwade myfelf enough has been faid to prove, that the Apoftle alludes in thefe pafiages to the ancient and fcriptural mode of adminiftering Baptifm by immerfion. Left, iiowever, it fhould be fuppofed, that prejudice, or the being accuflomed to confider the words in this light, hath had any undue influence on iny reafoning, you will allow me to annex the
(o) Page ^a, 43.
inter-
t9 Immerfion conjtdered. lo-t
interpretations which fome eminent vc^w have given us of the texts referred to, who yet were not in the fame practice with us. I might cite many fuch authorities, but I Ihall confine my- feJf to a few. Archbifhop Tillotfon fays, in bis fcrmon on 2 Tim. ii. 19. Anciently thofe who were hapt'i%cd put off their garrnentSy which fignified the putting off the lady ^-f fm^ and were immerfed and buried in the ivater^ to reprefent their death to Jin j and then did rife up again out of the water, to ftgnify their entrance upon a n^zu life. And to thefe cuftoms the Jpjs^ file alludes^ when he fays ^ *' How JJjall we^ that are " dead tc fin, live any longer therein? Know ye not " that fo 7nanyJ>f us as w€re baptized into Jefus Chrij?
•• &c." Bifhop Burnet, in his Exppfuion of
the Articles (p), fays, th^it when any were brougU to acknowledge that Jefus is the Chrijl, l^c, then they were to baptize them, and initiate ithem intb this re- ligion, by obliging them to re^nowhe ,gH idolatry and ungodlinefs, as well as^qllfec^lar^(fhd,cfirn(\lJ^^Jls'y ond they led tl^^ra into the water, and iuith no other garments but what might "coper nUtMre^ thCy at frji laid them down in the water, as a man is bid in a grave, and then they faid thefe words, J baptize or wafh thee, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghojl J then they raifed them up again, and clean garments ivere put, on them. From whence came the . phrafes of " being baptized into ChrijVs death, of " being buried with Him by bftptifm into death , of
(p) Artie. 27. p. 300.
F 3 « cur
'3^2 Scriptural Allufwns
** our h/Jifrifen with ChriJ}" and of «< our put- *'- ting on' iht Lord Jefui Chrijl ; of ■putting off the *^- old man y'* and putting on the nei/j.'^ — Dr. Whit- by,' in his Commentary on the New Tcftament, obfGivcs upon the pailage before us, // beitig ex- frefsly declared here^ and Col. ii. 12. that we are ^*'' Imfted with ChriJ} in baptif?n^''^ by being buried under water ; and the argument to oblige us to a xonforfnity to his death by dying to fm^ being takeh hence ; and this immerfion being religioujly obfcrved by .allChriJlidns for thirteen centuries^ and approved by our churchy and the change of it into fprinklingy even without any allowance from the Author of this ^inJJiiutiony or any licence from any council of the ■churchy being that ivhich the Romanijl Jlill urgethy *-to jujtify his r'efufat of the cup to the laity \ it were to 'be' wijhed thiifthu ^Ufioni might be again of general ufey and afperJioH -only permitted^ as of old, in cafe of the cliniciy or iri' prefeiit danger of death.-— The AfTembly of Divines,^ 'in their Annotations, tlius exprefs their f^nfe of the'woirds; In this phrafi, ■ * * Bufiecb with- ""Him tn bapti'fmy^' the Apoflle feemeth to cdhde to the ancUnh'manner of baptifm^ which wds to dip-'t^ 'paHic's^^pizedy '^nd^'dlif Were to bury iheniiiMerm iCtiief for\'' while y and thin to draw them up out cf'itl-'and'Uft them up^ to reprefent the 'V trial of%rM%hh, and bur rcfurreSlion to ncw- nfs of //Yi^'-^A'n^'Dr.^i^dddriclge acknowledges. It fcerhs thifart 'of caiYdor' to conffsy that here is an
allufion to the mim' ^f'^^P^'^'^^^^^ ^y ^^^^^"f^^^' ^^ ■ ^ [ moji
to Immerficn conjtdered, 103
moji ufual in ihcfe early times. Though, indeeed,' he adds, tkat that will not prove this particular cir-^ lumjlancc to he ejfential to the ordiiiance,
4.^ The laft pafiage Mr. J. mentions, as \in- derftood by fome to allude to immerficn, is in I Cor. XV. 29. Elfe what Jhall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rife not at all ? why are they alfo baptized for the dead? As there are various fenfes given of this text, virhich it would be tedious to collecl: ; fo the Baptids do not lay any great ftrefs upon it in favour of their opinion. That fenfe, however, which our Au- thor adopts as " moft natural and proper,'* in- ftead of weakening the argument refpciSting im- merfion, feems to me rather to confirm it. Fie thus paraphrafes the text — " If there be no re- '-' furre£i:ion, what iliall they do, what a part '' will they appear to have afted, who in Chrif- " tian Baptifm, have been initiated among thofe " that avow themfelves dead to the fmful plea- *' fures of fenfe in the prefent life, in which ** fuch indulge themfelves without reftraint as *' have no expectation of an hereafter?" Now, if in Chriftian Baptifm we are Initiated among the dead, it feems natural to expert that there fhould be fomething in the inftitution fignifica- tive of fuch initiation. And *what mode of ad- miniftration fo proper to that end, as the inter- ment of the body in water? But, if I may bq F 4 allowed.
104 Scriptural Allufwhs
allowed, with all deference to the judgment of others, to give my own fenfe of the words j I (bould fuppofe the Apoftle's meaning to be this, * To what purpofe are Chriftians baptized
* (t^^ep) in the room of the dead, laid in the ' baptifmal fepulchre as if they were perfons
* a£lually dead, and fo raifed up again, in token
* of the death and refurredion of Chrift, and ' of their own future death and happy refur- *■ region ; to what purpofe, I fay, are they
* baptized after this manner, if there be no re- ' furredtion at all ?* The words, in this view of them, furnifti a ftriking argument to the Corinthians, in favour of this great doctrine which had been controverted amon^ them. For fo the Apoftle reminds them, that they were not only taught this doctrine by his and the preach- ing of others, but that Baptifm, a (landing in- iHtution in the church, fignificantly exprefTed it; and that therefore, if there were no refurre6lion, this facred rite fhould be laid afide. Nor does the connexion of the words with what he had been juft declaring concerning the deftruAion of death, and the final confummation of all things, render this fenfe of them unnatural and inproper. But whether this interpretation be the genuine one, 1 fubmit. Agreeable, how- ever, to it a Writer (^) on the fubjed fays, Som%
(y) Pr. John Iclwaids, Enquiry into four remarkable texts, p. 143.
to Tmmerfjon cofifidered. 105
of th fathers hold, that the Jpojiles argument in the iext is of this fori: If there Jhould be no rifing of the dead hereafter^ why is Baptifm fo ftgnificant a fymbol of our dying and rifing again, and alfo of the death and refurre^ion i>f Chrift? For thofe thai were profelytes to the ChriJIian religion, were interpreted to make an open profejfion of thefe, in their being f lunged into the haptijmal water, and in beiifg there overwhelmed and buried as it ivere in the confecrated ekment. T^hk immerfion into the water was thought to fignify the death of Chrijl, and their coming out denoted' his rifmg again, and did nalefs repj'efent their own future refurrediion.
What our Author obferves at the clofe of thtg fe6lion concerning " a cuflom among the pri- ** mitive Ciiriftians of baptizing over the fepul- ** chres pf the dead marcyrSj" is manifeftly in- troduced, not with a vitw to elucidate the text (for he is not of their jpinion who think the Apoflle alludes to fuch a cuftom) bat to make way for a remark favourable to the pra6^ice of fprinkling. " And it cannot," fays he, " he ** thought that they, were plunged in Baptifm " over thofe graves." Biit, he fliould have firft explained and eftablifhed the faii, before he had ventured to- draw any inference from it. It might be acuftomin primitive tidies (thoti;^^ fcATce fo early as in the apoftolic age *) to tap-
• Vid. Wulfi; Cr.ras Philol. in lac-
F 5 Czz
io6 Scriptural AUufions^ he,
tize in church-yards : but it is evident from hiftory and many venerable monuments of antir- quity, that wherever Baptifm was adminiftered, xvhether in the church itfelf or the yard adjoin- ing, the font or pool vv^as of- ;a ijze^ ^adaptec}^ to
the purpofeofimmerrionCr).<.:3 vii t1 riiAisv''^
And now. Sir, having followed Mr. J, thro' the feveral allufive paflages he has thought fit to confider, you will judge whether the fenfe the Baptifts affix to them, as referring to immerfion, is forced and improper, or plain and natural.
I am, Sir,
Yours.
(r) Mofhelm fays, " The facrament of Baptifm was «* adminiftered in this (i. e. the firft) century without «* the public afiemblies, in places appointed and prepared ** for that purpofe, and was performed by immerfion of •* the whole body in the baptifmal font." Ecclef. Hift. Vol. I. p. 104. See alfo Bovver's Hiftory of the Pppes, Vol, II. p. 110. note A.
LET-
I 107 1
LETTER VIL
Dear Sir,
Hitherto our Author has chiefly been upon the defenfive; but it fhould feem from the title of this fixth chapter which we are now to confider, that he here intends to make a direct and formal afiault: for he objedls to our pra£lice thofe Baptifms recorded in the NetuTeJfament, that do not appear to }yave been admin'tjlered by invncrfan^ but, as 1 fuppofe his meaning is, by afperfion. And indeed if Mr. A, can produce one inftance from his Bible of Chriftian Baptifm being per- formed by fprinklingj or,, which is much the fame thing, one inftance wherein it is abfurd to fuppofe it was adminiftered by immerfion, we will debate the matter no longer. But then, he muft not think to put off his Readers with mere appearances^ or what he may call probabilities, in the room of clear and fubftantial proof. For conjetStures will not avail, in oppofition to the evidence that has been-addaced in fav^our of the fadl for which I contend'; -And now wh-at Is iiis firft inftance? It is, ' • ■
F 6 J. The
io8 Baplljms fuppofed to have been
I, The Baptifm of Paul, The particulars of the ftory, fo far as they relate to the matter before us, are thefe : '* Saul, having been con- verted in his way to Damafcus, was led by the men that were with him to the houfe of one Judas in that city. There he was three days without fight, and without either eating or drink- ing. In that interval, Ananias, a certain difci- ple and a devout man, was commanded by God to go to him, and tell him what he muft do. Ananias accordingly went to him in the houfe of Judas: and, having laid his hands on him, flelivered the mefiage he had in charge, and ex- horted him not to tarry, but to arife and be bap- tized y he reflored to him his fight. And Saul arofe, and was baptized. And when he had re- ceived meat, he was ftrengthened." A<5ls ix. J— 19. compared with ch. xxii. 5 — 16.-
Now the fum of what Mr. J, has to fay upoa the ftory is this— that " what pafled in the houfe ** of Judas feems, the whole of it, to have been •' tranfaded in a very little time'* — that " it is •* not probable Judas had a bath ini his houfe, •' or that he ihould order a large tub to be •' brought in, and water fufficient to dip Saul ** there" — and that " the Apoftle's weak ftate *' of health, not having eat any thing iot ** three days, would render iramerfion iu3<- •* proper * i" for this I take to be the idea he
* P. 47.
would
admimjhred hy Afperfion. '' 109 would Infinuate (though he has not exprefled it) by putting that circumftance in a parenthefis. So that, according to our Author, we have all the probabilities of time, convenience, and health againft us. And, if there was not time enough for immerfing him, nor water enough in which to immerfe him, nor he himfelf capable of being immerfed ; can you wonder, Sir, at Mr. A/% putting this queftion, " Where then is the proof " or probability of his being baptized after this " manner?" or, as I (hould have added, of his being baptized at all ? But, however thefe o^ jeftions, thus confidently put, may ftrike an iB- attentive Reader j they are really too trifling, if it were not for the fake of fuch perfons, to require an anfwer.
Where is the proof or probabiMty of his being baptized by immerfion! There is hoih probable lity and proof too. Sir. As to time, (hort as it may ft em, there is no circumftance in the ftory that fo limits it, as not to leave fpace enough for the admin iftratiof) of the ordinance in this way. An hour was more than fuiHcient for the needful preparations. And I know no reafoiv why we may not fiippofe Ananias ftaid many hours with him. As to a convenient place to baptize in, Abana and Pharpar rivers of Damafcus, which Naaman preferred to Jordan, were furely as commodious for a humble convert to be ii»-
merfed
1 10 Baptifms fuppofed to have hen
mcrfed in, as the proud captain of the Syrian hoft. Or if Mr. A. will have it that he did not go out of the houfe of Jud^s, why {hould he think it fcarce imaginable that Judas had a bath in. his houfe? Need he be told that bathing was much ufed at that time, and that private as well as public baths were very common ? What occafion then for the expedient of " ordering a " tub to be brought in j" unlefs it be to divert his Reader, and give an air of ridicule to that which he finds it fo difficult to difprove? But if we could perfuade Mr. A. that it is not im- probable that Judas might have a bath, or fome -Other accommodation in his houfe for baptizing; he ftill infifts that " the Scripture mentions no *' one circumftance to countenance either fup- *' pofition * ;'* and therefore he cannot think the Apoftle was immerfed. But, if Scripture had exprcfsly told us, that Judas had a bath in his houfe, and Saul was baptized in it; would our Author have believed he was plunged in it ? I am inclined to think from his former reafoning he would not. ' He might have been at it, and in it, and yet not dipped in it.* And now as to the Apoftle's weak ftate of health ; Mr.-^. has only infinuated the objedicn, not avowed it. I will however juft obferve upon it, that though his ftrength might be in a degree cxhaufted by failing, this did not render bathing improper; Bor could he apprehend any incp.qvQAiwice .froip
♦ P. 48.
adminiftered hy Afprjion, 1 1 1
it, who was jufl: before miraculoufly reftored td his fight. Thus all our Author's improbabilities yaniih. But as he ftill afics, where is t\\Q proof that he was irnmerfed? I will tell him. The fa'cred Hiftorian has afTured us of the fa£l, by exprefsly declaring he was baptized^ dipped or plunged, as Ihave proved the word fignifies*
2. The next inftahces Mr. J. mentions of perfons *' who do not appear to have been irn- merfed " are thofe of Cornelius and the other Gentile converts affembled in his houfe, '^ The Holy'Ghofl^ it {ctms^ falling upon them as they heard the wordy Peter faid^ Can any man forbid ivater^ that ihefe Jhouhl not be baptized^ which have received the Holy Ghojl, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord'\ hOiz x, 44 — 48. Upon this fhort flory y\.x,A, obferves, *« that nothing is faid here that fliould induce ** us to think that Cornelius had proper convex " niencies in his houfe for plunging thefe conf *' verts*/' from whence he would conclude they were not plunged. But what flrange reafon- ing is this ! It is juft as if a perfon were to infift, that Paul did not adminifter the other ordinartcp to the difciples at Troas ; becaufe, though it is exprefsly declared he broke bread to them, yet it does not appear from the ftory that he had thfe proper conveniencies for the celebration of it, there being no mention made of their having furnifhed themfelves with wine. Wc fay, and
f P. 4S.
have
112 Baptifms fuppofed to have heen
have proved, that the word baptize fignifics to plunge. Our Author admits that this is, at leaft, one fenfe of the word. Since therefore the Gen- tile converts are faid to have been baptized, what has he to obje£i to their having been plunged I Why, that we are not ioJd of their having proper conveniencies for the purpofe. Is not this frivolous to the laft degree? Mr. J.^s bufinefs is to prove from the flory, that it is abfurd to fuppofe they were dipped, the circumftanccs of time, place or health not admitting of it. Till he has done this, fuch, remarks as thefe will with a conGderatc Reader have no efFeiSl.
He farther obferves, that ** the plaineft and " moft natural meaning of the expreflion, Can " any man forbid water that thefe Jhould not be hap- " tized? is. Can any forbid water being brought?. " and not, Can any forbid that thefe fhould go ** to the water, or be put into it * ?*' Biit furely if Mr. A» will allow himfelf a moment to reflb6^, he will fee, that, as the words are an ellipfls, the fenfe may as grammatically, and as properly, be fupplied in this latter way as the former. — And thus have we confidered the whole of what is obferved concerning the Baptifm of Cornelius, and the Gentile converts with him.. Which leads us,^
3. To the cafe of the Jailor, The {lory I for- bear to relate, for the fake of brevity. We have
it
ddminijlered hy Afperjlon, 113
it at large, A6ls xvi. 25 — 40. What Mr. A, obferves upon it, in the ftrft place, is, that *' we ** have not the leaft hint of Paul's plunging the *' Jailor and all his houfe at midnight *." But if the word baptize fignifies to plunge, as I have fhewn it does; the Hiftorian has not only given us a hint, but an exprefs afiurance of their hav- ing been plunged. The "Jailor was baptized^ he and all hisj Jlraighiway. Our Author objecfbs, however, as in the laft inftance, that *' not a " v<^ord is faid of his having any place conve- " nient for dipping them." But does it thence follow that he had no place convenient for the purpofe? Grotius is of opinion that there was a pool within the bounds of the prifon j and in that pool they might be very commodioufly bap- tized : or clfe in the river near the city, men- tioned in the 13th verfe. And what abfurdit}% I may add, what improbability, is there in either of thefe fuppofitions ? Nor are the Baptifts driven to the neceflity, as our Author would infinuate, of " perverting the plain meaning of the Hifto- ** rian's words f," in order to prove that the or- dinance was not adminiftered in the Jailor's houfe. They agree with him that, when it is faid ihd 'Jaikr brought Paul and Silas out^ the meaning is that he brought them out of the inner prifon into which he had before thruft them. But it does not from thence follow, that he brought theni into his houfe before he was baptized. On the
• P. 49. t Ibid.
contrary.
114 Baptifms fuppofed to have h^en contrar)', the order of the ftory clearly fhews, that the Jailor and his family were baptized, after he had brought Paul and Silas out of the inner prifon, and before he led them into his own houfe. For after he had brought them out, it is faid, he took them the fame hour of the night and wa/hed their firipes ; and was baptized^ he and all his, Jjraightway . And when he had brought them into his houfe ^ he fet meat before them &c." So that Mr. A. is greatly miftake|i when he tella us, that V it feems as evident that the Jailor and all his ** were baptized there (that is, in the Jailor's ** own houfe) as that they were baptized at all */* As to the " improbability of their being all " plunged at that time of night," it is an ob- je£lion that may perhaps with a curfory Reader have fome efic£l > but when he comes to refle£^ on the general and frequent ufe of bathing in thofe days, and. on the extraordinary revolutiGA which had juft happened in the Jailor's houfe, the objeclion will, I think, have very little weight with him. Since, however, our Author has thought fit to ftart this objection, he will allow me to oppofe to it the improbability of taking infants out of their beds at midnight to fprinkle them. And, ftrange as it may feem to him, ♦' that the Apoftles, whofe backs were galled *' with the (Iripes they had received but a few *' hours before, fhould in thefe circumftances *' a^empt to dip the Jailor,". ||:the £aa will fcarce
* P. 50. .ft Ibitt.
appear
admlnijlered hy Afperfion. 1 1 5
appear more extraordinary to a confiderate reader .than that of the Jailor's wafiiing the ftripes of the Apoftlcs. 1/5 however, theib.fa£ls are no far- ther irnprpbable than' the fuppofition that the Jailor had a refcrvoir of water in his houfe, upon which ilme Mr. A. feems willing to reft the matter ; I believe moft thoughtful perfons will be of opinion that they are not improbable at all. And now,
4. The fourth and laft inftance he mentions is in A6t;s ii. 41. where the infpired Writer, fpeak- ing of Peter*s fermon at Jerufalem, fays, Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: a?id the fame day there were added ahcui three thoufand /omU.- The fingle HGt which from this text the Baptifts are obliged to maintain is this, that upon Peter*s preaching three thoufand perfons were immerfed in water. And furely no one will fay that this .fa<5t. is incredible. In order, however, to make it appear incredible, our Author would reduce us to a necefTity of aflerting, that this great multitude of people, both men and women, unprovided, with fuitable changes of apparel, were plunged in water, by the twelve Apoftles, in one day. A very unfair rcprefentation this ! And yet, abating for the circumflance of change of raiment, even this rcprefentation docs not ren- der the fa6t incredible : and incredible he muft prove it to be, ere it can have any efFecSl to (et
afidc
1 16 Baptifms fuppofed to have been
afide the pofitive evidence that has been brought in favour of imnfierfion. Let us fee how the matter flands. ■ As to the fpace of time in which they were baptized, the text does not fay they were baptized in one day only : I am willing however to admit, that that was the hd:. But it is to be remembered, that as Peter's fermon was preached at nine o'clock in the inorning, there remained many hours for the adminlftraiion
of the ordinance. With rerpe(fl to proppr
conveniencies for the purpofe, no place could be -more commodious than Jerufalem. In the tem- ple, the city, and private houfes, there were lavers, pools, and baths, in great abundance. And tho' many of the people were at a diftancc from their flated abodes, *tis fcarce likely they iwould travel without change of raiment, what- ever doubt Mr. ji, may have upon the matter. Or if that fhould have happened to be the cafe with fome of them, they might furely be very foon fupplied in fo populous a place as Jerufalem. So that our Author need not feel any anxiety for the decent adminiftration of the ordinance.
. And then as to the adminiftrators, fince we
are not told cxprefsly who they v/ere, and fincc we know that the feventy difciples did baptize, as well as the Apoftles, on other occafions; it is no unreafonable conjecture that they aflifted the Apoftles upon this. But, if Mr. J, will have it that this is mere canje^ure^ we may affirm thai it
is
admifiifiered by Afperfion. 1 1 7
is little better than mere conjc£lure on his part to fay, that the Apoftles alone baptized them. All, however, that is required of us upon the prcfcnt queftion is, fatisfa£lorily to account for the fa<5l, that three thoufand might be immcrfed, immerfed in one day, and with eafe to«^ And this furcly we have done : for no one will fay it is a griev- ous tafk for eighty-two perfons to baptize each between thirty and forty in that time.
Thus, Sir, we have confidered thofe other Baptijms recorded in the New Tejlament^ that do not appear to our Author to have been admlnijlered by ttnrnerfion. How the matter may appear to you and others, upon a refledtion on thefe remerks, I muft leave. And am,
Sir,
Yours,
LET.
( "8 ]
L E T T E R VIII.
. Dear Sir,
IN his feventh and laft chapter our Author undertakes to prove, that fprinkling or pour* vig water in Chrijiian Baptifm is ftioji agreeable to fcriptural reprefentations of the ordinance and allufions to it. To this end he tells us, that Baptifm is 9 token of thofe two grand bleffings of the gofpel covetlant, our Jujiification through the blood of Chrift, and our San^lification by the Holy Spirit: and that therefore it feems to be mofl properly adminiftered by fprinkling or pouring of water. He begins,
I. With our Jujiification by the blood of Chrifi-. Of this, he fays, Baptifm is a token or figure, which, in my apprehenfion, feems not very well to agree with what he elfewhere fays of this ordi- nance, that " it does not figure any fcenes thro' '' which our Redeemer pafled [a) ; and, that to confider it in this light is " to make the two *' diftindl pofitive inftitutions of the gofpel inter- *' fere w^ith one another (^)." Nor do I well know how to reconcile what he here fays of
{a) P. 45. {b) P. 42.
\. Baptiim's
Paffages fuppofed^ Sec, up
Baptifm's being " a token of the application of " Chrift's blood for our juftification" (by which application he muft certainly mean faith) with his not recolle6ling '* one exprefs command, " either of Chrift or his Apoflles, to baptize " believers {c)." If Baptifm hath no reference to the death of Chrift, and is in no fenfe a me- morial of it, and if there is no command to bap- tize believers; how is Baptifm a token or fign of our juftification by his blood, and of the ap- plication of it to us for that purpofe? But ad- mitting that it is a token of our juftification, though I know no pallage of Scripture that fo reprefents it ; how does it from thence follov/, that it is more properly adminiftered by fprink- Img than by immerfion ? If the New Tefta- ment is to determine which mode is the moft pro- per, as we arc there told that Chrj/i died for cur offences^ and rofe again for our juftification^ and that in Baptifm we are buried with Him^ and rife with Him i immerfion furely does as ftrongly exprefs our juftilication, as does afperfion. Aye but, fays Mr. J. " We well know that the blood of the *' legal facrifices was applied by fprinkling,'* and " the blood which Chrift flied at the offering up " of his body is called the blood of fprinklirig *." True. But by what rules of logick does it thence follow, that water in Baptifm is to be applied by fprinkling? The Scriptures no where draw this
(c) Page 1 14. *P. 53.
con-
i 2 o . Pajages fuppofed to.
conclufion. Nor hath the phrafe of the blood ef fprinkllng any the leaft reference to Baptifm, but only to that ceremonial action under the Jewifli law. Weill but " the Apoflle John fays, " the blood of Chriji ckanfeth from all fmr He does fo. But does he thence infer that water Is to be fprinkled upon us? The truth is, he does not refer to Bapiifni at all : or, if Mr. A, will have it that he does, cleanfing furely is much better efFeded by dipping than fprinkling. It is alfo true that the Apoftle Peter declares " we. are ile^led through the fprinkling of the blood of Jefus'^** but does he add that we are therefore to be bap- tized by fprinkling? This mode then of admi- niftring the ordinance, as an " emblematical •* reprefentation " of our juftification, hath no foundation in the word of God, however pofi- tively our Author may aficrt it. It may, I ac- knowledge, have fome foundation for it in his own imagination, Baptifm ^^ feems^" he tells us, to be moft properly thus adminiftcred as a token of our juftification through the blood of Chrift. Nor ftiould I have much wondered if he had added, that it feems to be moft properly admini- flered, not only by fprinkling^ but by fprinkling blood inftead of water. For if thefe freedoms are to be taken with pofitive inftitutionb in one par- ticular, why not in another? Let imagination have its full fcope : and then the queftion will be, which has the happieft invention, our Author,
or
allude to Afperjton, 12 1
or St. Peter's fucceflbr at Rome. Mr. J. will however give me leave to remind him here of a
ienfible obfervation of his own " a ftrong
** imagination, or a prejudiced mind, may find " an object, and then point out a refemblance *' in many particulars ; but no reader of judg- *' ment and caution will firain an obfcure allu- *' fion (d) ;" much lefs, I will add, fix an allu- fion where there is none at all. — We go on.
2. To our SanSfiJication by the Holy Spirit. Of this, our Author tells us, Baptifm is a token or figure ; and I readily agree with him it is (o» But the queftion is, whether fprinkling or plung- ing is required in this inftitution to exprefs our fanctification. To give the former the fan(Slion of divine authority, Mr. J, has colle(3:ed feveral paflages wherein fprinkling is mentioned in re- ference to purification, and the Holy Spirit, who is the great Agent in our regeneration and fanc- tification, is reprefented as poured upon \is. Bat, unhappily for him, if he could have found a hundred fuch palTagcs in his Bible, they would not have anfwered his purpofe, unlefs he could have proved that thefe phrafes had a refpedt to Chriftian Baptifm, or, at leaft, that it vvefe high- ly probable the infpired Writers meant to allude to it. Whether our Author was doubtful of fuccecding, I will not pretend abfolutely to af-
Oi) Page 37.
G firm i^
122 Pcfffages fttppofed'tQ
Jirm ;• but it fcems as if -Jbe were not iil a very good humour by the warmth with which he here addreiles the Bapt-jfts, bidding them '^ not dare " to cenfuie fprinkling as an improper emblem '* of purity i'' and warning " profefling Chrif- " tians efpeciaJIy ,to beware of fuch raftinefs, '' becaufe the God and Father of our Lord Jefus '' Chrift repeatedly makes ufe of the term, when '* promifipg the influences of the Spirit." But what Baptill, Sir, is fo grievoufly offended with the word fprinkling, as not to allow it is ever ufed to exprefs purifying or cleanfing ? The leper might be fprinkled, and thereupon pro- nounced clean ; and the Prophet might fay in reference to that ceremony, efpecially at the time when it was 2.6iua\\y in ufe^ J will fprink/e c/ean ijuaier. upon you ^ and ye Jl:all be clean: though it is to be remembered that the leper was not fprink- led with clean waterj but with blood, and that the main part of his purification, as I have fhewn before, confifted in waCaing or bathing himfelf in ;Water,C^). But there might, I fay, be a reference ,to the action of fprinkling in thefe ceremonies ior piuiiication, and yet not even the mofi di- ilant aliufion to Chriftian Baptifm. Our Author however will have it, "that the word of God *> exprefsly calls fprinkling Baptifm., and fpeaks ♦• of peifons and things as baptized that were ** not dipped, but fprinkled.'' To prove which
(^) Lev. xiv. 8.
afiertion
allude to . /{fperjion^ i rf
a^ffcitlofv'-lie'reftrs lisjtoHeb. ix. ip. where "ihe A'poftlei rpeaTcd' of diverfe bcrpujm (^iatpopoi? $,x'^ 7 V!d'fii}ii). But' I have alfeacly fhewn; t^'at ihefe djverfe i^aptiims rcfp.eiSt the -various bathings of prieftsjlevites,- and people; for cdnfcciration, de- filement, &:c. in v/hichTen-fe of thephrale "J have the concui*rence of Spencer,' Whitby, and' other learned' Potdbbapt^ifts Yy5'. ' "^pr' *dofe^; it '?o!iow fr6m the ApoftJe's* fpeakiit^," three'br four verlts after the textj of the fpiiiikling the unclean with the blood ■ of bulls and goats, and of Mofes*s fjDrinklmg the book and 'the people with blood, that therefbre thetdVa of fprinkling is includecl* rn the word- Baptif?n's ': riot to 'fay that a fpeffion can 'feared "with propriety be called a mdd6 -of wafbing.' So that though our Author fhs thought fit to alFert, " that the word of God exprefsly '•' calls, fprinkling Baptifms, and that we have " here a certain proof that fprinkling and bap- *' tiz-ing are the fame;'* you and I, Sir, and I hc- Heve ev*ery doi'ifiderateRcader, will be of cpinioii that the proof; on'v^hic'h he lays To rnuch iirefs^ fails. And after all, if the Apoftle did me&n by the word Baptifms to exprefs the Jcwifh fprink- lings as well as bafhings, it cannot furely be infcr'd from this"paflrage, in which there is no kind of allufion to Chriflian Baptifm, that " fprinkling^ or pouring of water is a fcriptuial *' rcprcfentation of the ordinance.'*
(f) See page 37 of thefe Letters.
G 2 But
1 2 4 P^ffages fuppofed to
But to return : Mr. J, cites other texts from the Old Teftament, fuch as, " / will fprinkle *' dean water upon you^ and ye Jhall he clean — my, " Servant (meaning the Mefliah) /hall fprinkle ** 7nany natiom — I will pour zuater upon him that is ** ihlrjiyy SiC. — I will pour my Spirit upon thy feed^ ** &c.'* Upon which I need only obferve, that if he expeds his Readers will conlider thefe paf- fagcs as fcriptural reprefentations of Baptifm, or even allufions to it, he muft either have a very indifferent opinion of their "judgment and cau- '* tion," or be himfelf, as he had faid before of others, a man of a very *' ftrong imagination, *' or a very prejudiced mind." But he will per- haps tell us, that his view in citing thefe texts was, to connect them with the words of Luke, " *' who, in the Adis, defcribing the accomplifh- '* ment of thefe promifes, exprefTes himfelf thus, ** On the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the " Holy Ghoji,'" And what then ? Suppofmg this laft phrafe was w^t^ by the Evangelifl in refer- ence to thofe promifes, which yet does not ap- pear from the ftory, is there any proof, I afic, or the lead probable ground to apprehend, that the Hiflorian alluded to Baptifm? Unlefs it be faid, that wherever the words fprinkling and pouring are ufed in Scripture, there muft needs be a reference to this Chriftian inftitution. As to the other pailage he quotes from Titus, where the fame phrafe is ufcd of the Holy Ghoft being
allude to Jfperfwn, iir^
^* Jhed or poured out upon us (g) j" if he will have it that it refers to B.iptifm, and that it is from thence very clear that *' i>o mode is fo proper ** and expreffive as fprinkling or pouring of v/a- ** ter;'* let me intreat him, Sir, candidly to confider the preceding verfe, where the Apofltc Ypeaks of the tua/hing cf regeneration. This he will fcarce doubt alludes to Baptifm alfo. Now the original word Aa7v'oi', there ufed, is derived from Ky.u (/:?), which does moft properly, if not neceflarily, llgnify fuch waihing as is by plung.- jng or dipping the body in water. The Septua- gint Vcrfion almoft conftantly ufes it in thofe many .paflages in the Old Teftament, where bathing or wafhing the whole body in water is commanded. Elifha bids Naaman go and K>itja4 wsfli in Jor- dan feven times : and it is afterwards faid he went down and dipped himfelf, iCcl^']igJ]c* And, i^i .plain conformity to this meaning of the word, the Apoftle fpeaks, Heb. x. 22. of the hodys being tvajhed with pure zuater AiX^sy.ivoi to ac-jixa. vS'a^t Kuoafcj, If therefore, in thi-s phrafe of the wafli- ing of regeneration there is an allufion to Bap- tilm ; as Baptifm is therein defcribed by a word which moft properly denotes fuch a wafhing as is by plunging of the whole body, it is fcarce proba- ble that the Apoftle meant by the Jhcdding of the Holy Ghojl in the next verfe (a phrafe fo commonly
(g) Tit. Mi. 5, 6.
(/>) A»a^lavo, & qii idem proprle corpus. HeJ. Lejc. G 3 ufcd
J 2i6 /P^fjpiges fuppofed to
^k^ t0,(ig5R:i^>i thpidefcent Qi the'Spiirit) .t6 al'Iutk to /prjinkJJogi/isLjtbe^rproFlerniode of hapti^jng. -iApii \\\\% leadfl me tj>.5 '
j QurAutbor'sila^ argument in. favour of ifprink- ;Jii5g,; -w^ich 'is taken from the .ajcoount giycn us o/ ihe.dtfeenl of the Holy Ghoft in A61-s-:ii, 3. ^^ktre appeared- unU: them cUven\tonguei^^Uke as of fin ^ :^W ! fuk Mps^n^Xmch of them, ^" B i^. reafon i n gr upon thiis paiTage, if Lj-ightly JunderiiaTid him, is this: John the Baptift, when: the Pharifees and Sad- <iucees came to his Baptifm, among other things iaiU,. Ihideed baptize you zvith- water unto repentance^ "lilt I^ .that Cometh . of tct' me h. mightier ihaniy ruuhofe.Jhoes- I am.not^wortfyth hear: He fiall bap- tize yau vjiththe HolfGhofi and with fire.' In thefe v/ords the Baptift fixes a refemblanc'e between Uie .'manner in which he baptized, and theiman*- ner in which the Mefliah who came after him -ikould baptize. As the former baptized with water, fo the latter fhouid wnth the Hoiy. Ghoft and with fire. So far we are agreed. But the queflion is as to the event. For that, Mr.v/, is of opinion, we are to look to the paffiige ]\xi\ cited from the Aas. - Be it fo. lihat paffage ihoivever <loes not fay, as our Author has thought fit tb reprefent it, that *'the celeftial £re- ^^/"^wJiY/: /'» *''- Jh-eams^ upon the. Apaftles, •and':that ii refted " only upon their heads." All it reportsis^ that there appeared unto them cloven topgii^CSjVijke
'as
xillude to Afperfion. 127
as of fire, and fat upon each ?if' tlicm. ' And is there fuch a refemblance between the fitting of cloven tongues of fire upon the A^oftles, nnd the fprinkling or pouring water, as to oblige us', contrary to all the pofitive evidence that has been produced, to conclude that Baptifm is mod pro- perly admin iftered by afperfion ? They might be encoixipafred with fire, as well as have cloven tongues of fire fitting upon them. Be that how- ever as it may,' the w;/W, which b often rcpfc- fenicd as an emblem of the Hdly Spirit, as weli as fire, is. faid to have/;7W all th'e hoiife ivhcre they ^ere fittings v. 2. and they- are* f^id; V'.'4. to bfe nil- filled ivkb- the Holy Ghojl:^ Might t^ejr n'Ot therefore, with very near as great propriety, be defcribed as being overivtiein^ed with th-e floly Ghoft and with fire, as having the Holy Ghoft and fire fprinkled or poured- upon them (/) ? But if this account of the word-s of John be not
(i) Some .Expofifors are of p\rimQV^ that " a& John *' was addrefTing himfelf to a mixed multitude of people, " confining of real penitents, of felf-riglueous Pharilees, " and of fcepticalSadducees, he meant, by the Baptifrfi *• of the Holy Ghoft and of fire, to exprefs both the waflv- *' ing of legeneration througU tlie influence of the Spirit *' whom Chiift fliould obtain, and the deftru6llon of Jerur *' falem by fire as the juft punifliment of the Infidelity •*' and impenitence of the Jews." And if this were his meaning, no one, who reads the accoimt which Jofephns gives of that horrible cataftrophe, can doubt a momeJit whether it beli agrees with the idea of immerfion or fpi ink.r
ling.
G 4 fatis-
1 2 8 P^Jfages fuppofcd te
iatisfasE^ory, there is another (and which I take to be the natural and genuine fenfe of them) that intirely deflroys this boafted argument of oar Author's in favour of afperfion. When our Lord lays, Except a man be bcrn of ivater and of the Spirit^ &c. he means, I apprehend, and I find Calvin, Grotius, &c, of the fame opinion, th water of the Spirit or fpiritual watcr^ the regene- rating influences of the Holy Spirit being often compared to water. Now as fire, in the lan- guage of Scripture, is ufed to denote the purify- ing influences of the Spirit as well as water ; there is furely the fame reafon to conclude, that John means by this fimilar phrafe of the Holy Spirit and fire, the fire of the Spirit, or fpiritual fire. And if fo, he who is renewed and fandli- iied is much more properly defcribed as being overwhelmed with thofe purifying influences of divine grace, than as having them fprinkled or poured on him 5 the former mode perfedly agree- ing with the ufual manner of refining metals, the latter not at all. And I am the more con- firmed in my opinion that this was the Baptift's idea, as he feems plainly to have had in his eye that remarkable predid^ion of the prophet Mala- chi, wherein his own character is firft defcribed, as the meffenger fent before the Mcfliah to prejiorg the way for Him ; and then imm.ediately our Sa- viour's, as He who iliould be like a refiner i fire^ md like f idlers foap^ who (hould // a^ a refiner
and
aUude to Afferfwn. r2qr
and purifier of ftlver^ a7id Jhould purify the fom of Levi^ and pwge them as gold and fiver (i). Nor is it improbable that h-e alluded alfo to that orher prophecy of Ifalah, who^ fpeaking of the king- dom of the Meffiah, fiiys, that the Lordfoall tvafi away the filth of the daughters of Zion^ hy the Spirit of judgmeni and hy the Spirit of humirig (/'). And- now if this be the natural and genuine fenfe of the words, what becomes of our Author's con- clufion from the defcent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecoftj to the divine authority of fprink- Jing?
Highly plcafed, however, with his analogical reafoning tVom this palTage, Mr. J. with an aic of triumph afks us, *' Why {hould any require, " the plunging of the v;hole body in Baptifm?" I anfwcr, as I have frequently done before, be- caufe Chrift and his Apoftles have required ir.. To dip or plunge is the true and proper meaning of the word, all the hiflorical accounts of Bap- tifm in facred Writ pcrfe(5^!y accord with it, and- very many pailagcs, that allude to it, do clearly confirm that fenfe. But, '* if that mode," con- tinues our Author, '*> were CjT.'ntial to a due *■*• adminiflration of ihe ordinance, either Chrift ^'' or his Apodles would certainly have infifted *' upon it." They have fo done ;, for if what was juft afferted be true, whenever they fpcak
(0 Mai. ili. 1, 2, 3. (f) Ku iv. 4.
G 5 of
1 3 o P^Jf^g^^ frpp -fid 1 0
of baptizing they fpeak of plunging; ^nd their, uniforjn pra(flicc flicws that this was their iJea of the inflitution. Here I would obfefve, that tp call immerfion and fprinkling difterent mode^ of the fam.e thing, is not only unfcriptural, but. abfurJ. It is a confufion of language to which Diodern cuf^.om, and that alone, has reconciled Tjs. _ P'or hovy improper is it to fay, that dipping .and fprinkling are tv/o modes of dipping (/j \ *' They might however," Mr. J. tells .us, *' have cxprefiGd::it in terms fo clear and ftrong, *' as that no honeft Inquirer could have doubted " of their meaning. But this," adds he, '' is very " far from being the cafe." Will our Author then be fo good as to tell us, what two fitter words etjuld be found, to exprefs the bathing of the whole-body, than K\'.cd and /3ii77l<(fst> ? Thefe ate tlve or'y two words, which the Septuagint Ver- fion of the Old Teflament ufes, to cxprcfs (he ceremony of immcrfmg the whole body, as diftinct from the other ceremony of fprink- ling. And thefe the Evangelifts and Apoftlcs make ufe of in the New Teftament, to defcribe this Chriftiati Inftitution^ as if -^n purpofe'to pre- clude all difpute about the niiatter. How then could they have better provided againft our mif- taking their true meaning? It is^not for me to affirm that an honeft inquirer may not pofiibly
^{l) See l^lain Account of tJie Ordinance of Baptifm, in a courfe of ktterj.to the Bifliop of VVincUe/lej-.
•^ 'J' '^ ^ ' ■' ^ ' "■ -miftake
allude to Afperfion, 1 3 1
miftake them ; for, though I have no doubt iii the world that Mr. y^. has miflaken them, I would be far from queftioning his hOnefty. But it is a fadt too notorious to be difputed, and which. I have already by feveral citations fhewn^ that feme of the mofV eminent writers ampng the Pcedobaptifts, eminent both for learning and piety, and whofe integrity Mr. A. will not call in queftion, have freely acknowledged that they have no doubt about' the matter. It is not there^ fore fo intricate an affair, as our Author would here feem to perfuade his Read^ers'-it is. Nor will he eafily make thofe believe 'who know the Baptifts, that they are difpofed,- as he would in- finuate, to arrogate to tbemfelves authority to decree rites and ceremonies in the Ghriftiad church: a principle which) he cannot bat be fenfible, they utterly reje6l. Nay, I may add, he mufi: be a very great ftranger to their writings, if he does not know, that it is from an a'ppre- henfion of the very dangerous tendency of thn principle, as well as a defire to maintain the ori- ginal purity of this inftitution, that they confi- der it their duty upon all fuch occafions as theft to defend the pra<5lice of immerfion.
*' Would our brethren," he proceeds with a
foftnefs of expre/Kon fcarce reconcilable 'wlffi
the feverity of the fentiment, *' perfaadb its
" there is no way to heaven but that of gdiri^
G 6 ^' under
•* under the water?" They would not: IVlr.^f. knows they would not. Since, however, he has thought fit to put this queftion, he will al- low me to put another. Would our brethrent perfuade us that our children are out of the co- venant, and their very falvation impeded by our not fprinkling them? A queftion which, tho* extorted from me by our Author's failure in point of candour, is fuiHcienily juftified by his reafon-
ing in the latter part of his work. Alike un-
candid is his nejtt obfervatlon, m which he in- finuatesy that the Baptifts look upon much wat«r as more available to falvation than a Utile; and which he has defcended to exprefs in a ludicrous kind of language that will do no real fervice to the caufe He is defending: for if cuflona had not reconciled the wofid to the modern way of bap- tizing, they would be apt as much to fmile at the pouiing water on the face of an infant, as •* the plunging a grown perfon in the Atlantick.''* But the fentimeiit he would convey to the dif- reputation of the Baptifts is fo totally ground- lefsy that charity herfelf \^ at a lofs to find any ©ther excufe for him, than his feeling a ^jfpicion that the arguments he had been ufing needed fome farther fupport. No, Sir! they by no other fl>cfs upon immeriion in thb ordinance, than Mr. J, does upon the right of the laity to the cup in the other. And a Papift may as vvqU tell him^ that he e;(pe<fts to merit falvation by
receiving
fiUude to Afperjion. 533
receiving the facrament of the Lord's fupper, becaufe not content with bread he mufl have wine alfo; as he tells usy that w^expecSl to wafh away our fms by water, becaufe, not content with a little of k fprinkled upon our faces, we obftinately infift on having the whole body im- merfed in it. We as heartily join iflue with the Apoftle, as Mr. J, in declaring, that " neither *<^ circumcifion nor uncixcumcilion,." neither Bap- tifm nor the fliadow of Baptifm, '' will fave us." Nor will any man of candour queflion our fin- C€rity, while he re£eds that we infift on a cre- dible profeflion of a perfon's having become a new creature^ as a prereq^uifiie to his Baptifm. With Peter alfo we readily agree, that " Bap- ** tifm (Ices net fave us by putting aavay. the flth *' of the Jieflj :'' though it feems a little e:xtra- ordinary th"at the Apoftle flioufd be fuppofed to colled this fentiment from our Saviour's faying, " He that is wajhed medeih not fnve to 100 fh his *' feet" As however Mr. J. has bimfelf drawa n.o inference from hence in favour of fprink.]ing> but only refer'd us to the opinion of a friend whom he cites in a note, I fhall content ray- ftlf with a remark or twa on. what he fi.ys below {?n\.
To
(?«) The li>genloM& writer Mr, A. quotes ruppore& that cur Saviour refers in thefe words to ChiiiVi.ui Baptii'in. I acknowledge I can fee no ground in the ftory for fuch 9, fuppofiiion. But admitting that the words do refer to
JJajHilm,
134 P'l/pig^^ fuppcfed Szc,
■ To Conclude, Sir, *' ^e refer it to every un- *' prejudiced and candid inquirer after truth and *' duty to judge, on a ferious attention to thefe *' few pages, whether our pra6iice of baptizing *« by immerfion be, as it is often reprefented, ^' abfurd and unfctiptural; nay, whether it be *' not our duty to adhere to it, as moft agree- *' able to what the word of God teaches con- *' cerning the nature and defign of the ordi- *' nance."
I am,
Sir, &c.
Baptilm, our Author does not pretend that they are con- clufive againft immerfion, but only againft /o^^?/ immerfion. So that it HioiUa feem he alldws the word Baptifm fignifies immerfion. And if'fo, how does it follow from our Lord's faying 'tltaf it is enough that the feet ht iminerfedythat it is cnotigh that the fact fee lurinkled?
! L E T-
13
L E T T E R IX.
Dear Sir,
TIRED as you may be with the prefent debate, I mull: intreat your patience a lit- tle logger, while 'I fum up wiVat has' been' faid iri favour of immerfion. This I the rather do,' as the plain nefs and brevity of the account I have to give of Bnptifm, will ferve to rerhove a pre- judice which feme may have too haftlly conceived againft ir, from the length and' frequency of theTe Gomroverfies. For how natural is it for perfons, fipon a genei-ai view of the argument, to reafon fhu^ r «^ If the Chriftlan difpenfatidn Is the laf!'^ the moft fimple^, and perfe<5t difpenfation of re- ligion ; and if it dnjoin's only two pbfitive ihfti- tutions, and thofe of general and perpetual uife HI the church ; it is, furely, fcarce imaginable that the great Legiflator fliduld exprefs Himfelf in fo indeterminate a manner, as to give occa- fion for the fe long arid tedious difquifitions, in order to cortfc tb tfie knowledge of his will.*' This,' S?r, 'you' 'are feWfiHle Is iiot^Hhd cafe. I ■^o«ld gla'dly hov/ev^ef, ' b'y thrdwifig togetlier what has been Taid in" a few J)ages, 'remove this
pre-
^1^6 Comhijion,
prejudice from the mind of the mofl fuperficlal Reader. Nor need I^ methinks, take any great pains to convince a man of plain underftanding^ and whofe mind is free from any undue bias ^ that the qucflion before us is very firnplc and in- telligible, and that the difputes which have been agitated about it, are not owing to any am.biguity or defecSl in the manner of our Saviour's having communicated his will to us ; but purely to the ingenuity which an unwillingnefs to acknow- ledge a miftake, and to reform an abufe, too often excites*
Our bleffed Lord, jiift before his afcenfion up into heaven, folemnly commifTioned hisApoftles^ and all fucceeding minifters, to go teach alltwtionSy baptizing them in the name of the Father^ of the Son ^ and of the Holy Ghoji, Matt, xxriii. 19, 20. His Apoftles muft have clearly underftood what their Mailer meant by baptizing^ and their condu£t was, no doubt,, conformable to the true import •of the command » In a courfc of time, how- ever,, a q^ucftion arifes, whether our Saviour meant by baptizing the immerfirkg perfons in water, or the fprinkling or pouring water upoa them, or the indifFcrent ufe of either of thefe modes of adminiftring the ordinance.. What iKould an honeft Inquirer,, in this. cafe, do? He certainly could be at no lofs. Hfi would firft endeavour to get the bell ijiformation he cgu14
con-
I
Condufton, 137
concerning the meaning of the word Baptixcj from its ufe in other paflages in the New Tefta- ment, in the Septuagint Verfion of the Old Teftamenr, and in the writings of Greek Au- thors. He would confuk alfo the opinion of Lexicographers, Criticks, and fuch other learned men 35 are fuperior to the influence oi prejudice. And, having fo done, he would examine the feveral hiftorical h€ts related in the New Tella- ment concerning Baptifm, and; thofe occafional allufions to the inftitution which may throw any light upon it. Nor is it to be queftiond but from thefe fources he would very cafily collect the truth, however clouded by prejudice, falfe reafoning, and the general cuftom of the times. )
In the firft place, as to the meaning of the Mirord. Upon confidering thofe few pafFages in the New Teftament, where it is ufed without any reference to the matter' in debate ^ he woulJ iind, that it naturally and properly fignifies im^ mcrfion^ or fuch wafhing in water as includes the idea of being dipped or plunged in it; and that the circumftances of the cafes referred to in jthofe paflages, do not oblige him to underftand it in any other fenfe. In the Septuagint it is ufcd five-and'twenty times : in eighteen of which in- fiances he would find it iiecejfarily fignifies to dip, and cannot poiiibly admit of any other rendering; and that as to the reft, thi& interpretation, tha*
not
1 5 8 Gonchifton.
not neccfTary, Is admiflible, and in mofl of them very natural and proper. As to profane Authors, he • vvoiuld.il nxl Sophocles defcribiwg .Ajax' as " baptizijig, or dipping, hisfpear in' the army *'^ of thq Gre^eks ;" Polybius fpeaking of tb* Carthsginians as' <' baptrzing, or finking, th^ *' veiTels'of the Romans- m the fea;" and Plu- tarch reprefenting Otho as " baptized, or over -* head-and'ears in debt:" not to mention avail many other inftances of .the like nature. :Tiie abkft Crkicks, fuch as Co^nftantinc,' Stephens^ Vafllus, Grotius, &c. Would tell hlfn that it fi-g- nifies to dip, or to wa{h by dipping. And with them would agree tlve mol^ confiderable Divines of this and ot-het- Gauntries, nay the learn-eki among Romanlfts, as well as Proteftants. For his' farther fatisfa(Sidn he would perhaps inquire^ Ti^sther,i.if oar -Lord ;rneant« Co enjoin afperfioft as: the pr6p6r mode, there were not words enough to jconvdy, that idea? To .which queftion he would, receive a ready anfwer in the affirmative; Whereas ^.on the contrai-y, he would quickly undcrfiand, that, if our Saviour meant toconfine us to immexfiojn, He could feared have conveyed his mind to us in any other way, unlefs by i. periphrafis, than that He has chofen : nay that it 'looks as if the Evangeiifts and Apoftfes,: by ufing tliE words ^K<y and ^nVji^of in reference to the inftitution, had purpofely defigned to pre- clude all occalion of difpute about the matter;
fince
■Cmclujion, ^^'39
>fin6c rth'efe 'Jare. tbe only words the Septtm^hit TV^rfioh ufes to expreft flie- ceremony offrnrnerf-- ^rri^ tlie T^hole b^dy, iis difl:iii(Sc 'from the other Icerdnrartf 'of rf)rink)in J^' 'iq »-'' -i' ' \ Ti-J ''•! J'^r-n ■•> ''> -^i" i^ •■'•''"''**- *
c^ ; Tildis'ifafisfied as to the trtre bi¥kmn^ of tlfe -wordv 'Wt would go on to irlq'uire into '\\h fhjilciribai fids 'Tecorded \xi the-New Teft^- aiicrlt cbncfePfiin^- BantHiTfi.- Arrd*lieffe "he wou'ltl -ex^o<£^; ;' :iif 'his ■ 'W e*a ' of '-the ' word ■ ' wei-e ' jafV, 3t-oii4htl^'pyFfoYi$ ba^tiied' in weh^'-bYMh ^fCich ^p>^tes '<if ' vVaft^r ^s kvBuld admit bF th'eir" b'ein^g ■Mlmefrca''tfiei-eft^V and to read oftheli' goin^ -doWji ^ihto '^h^' wkter, both adminiftrator, and 'fTi^ji?<5^,-kn3'^ their' coming 'up"^' out' of it^*'"" Ac- cordingly the 'JSvangelifts" would "telj "htmV thit John baptized the Jews in Jordan ', and in Enon ^titW Sali'm ,' ' decatife - the'rr ti^as muzh wtite?' 'there : that our Lord,' liavirrg been baptized by John, \vef7f Zip Jlraighiway ' out cf the' water : and that Philip and'the Eunuch, coming to a certain wd- ^1ef\'''wk'nt down both }?:to it; and, when^Philip had 'baptized the Eunuch, they came up out of it. Noc -would it at-all tmbirFafi'hi'm' to b6 t'old; that the Xjricek partfcles '^v," <«?rr,'ati'd '?xV ^^ fo'metimes ■rfgfrify/? 2iT\d frotn^ fiilce, in" the connexion they %ere'flahd, the fenfe oUr Tranflators have given "theni is moil YiJitural and proper:" i?pr could in- deed the f^cHedHiftorlans have 6th eVwife relate^ the trhinf/ftaticb-of the fa6l; fuppbfing tKey ni'eant
to
ii
140 Concliifim,
to convey the idea of immerfion. Zo that if the like fieedoms were taken with languages in other inftances, as feme objectors think themfelves at liberty to ufe in the prcfent cafe, the natural and obvious meaning of any writer might be eafily perverted, and the plaineft fadts in hiftory be rendered doubtful and precarious. Upon exa- mining farther the other Baptifms, recorded in a fumraary way, in the A(Sls, fuch as thofe of the Jews, Paul, Cornelius, and the Philippian Jai- lor j he would rn^et with no one circumftance that fliould "render it abfurd to fuppofe that they were plunged in water. Thus v/ould he find the hiftories of the New Teftament exa^Iy ac- cording with the fenfe in which he had inter- preted the word of the inftitution.
To obtain flill farther light upon the mattcF, and to put the queflion beyond all difpute, he would carefully examine all thofc pafiages in the New Teftament which allude to Baptifm, at the fame time laying no other flrefs upon them than the nature of all allufive evidence will clearly warrant. Hearing our Saviour fay, in the near profpecl of very grievous and pungent fufferings, that He had a Baptifm to be baptized mth, he would very naturally inquire which idea w6uld give the greateft force and energy to the fcntiment He defigned to convey; whether his being ovcrvuhclmed both body and foul in trouble,
or
Conclufion* iJfg
err his hclng fprini/ed therewith. Reading in the Epiftles, that profeffing Chriftians are confidered' as having been buried with Chri/i in Baptifm^ as h2Lv\ng arifert with Chfi/i, and as having put on Chri/i 't as it would ftrike him inftantly that here are manifeft allufions to the primitive manner of baptizing, (o he would be apt to conclude that thai muft have been by immerfton', iince, if it were by fprinkling or pouring of water, the ideas of a burial, a refurrecStion, and a change of raiment, would be intirely loft. And hearing the Apoftlc Peter fpeak of the falvation of Noah and his family in the ark, amidft the waters of the flood, as typical of Boptifm^ that is, of our falvation by the refurre<Slion of Chrift, fo fignificantly ex- prefled by this facred rite 5 he would be apt to infer, that there is a much more natural reference in this paflage to tmmerfton than ofperfion.
Nor would he flightly pafs over the words of John the Baptift to his difciples, that as he baptized them with water, fo Chriji ivould baptize them with the Holy Ghojl and fire. But, refle<Sling that moft probably the Baptift had that memorable pro- phecy of Malachi in his eye, wherein, he hiin- felf being fir ft defcribed, the MeiTiah is reprc- fented as coming after him in the character <u\' a Refinery he would be apt to conclude that John's meaning muft be, " that as he plunged his dif- '' ciples in water, fo Chrlft fhould, agreeable to ** this prophecy, as a Refiner purify his difciples
" with
ig^2{ Cmelufion,
^^^with fgirjtuaj fire, laying them tljereih,: as^ ^hie *Jv^'efiner does hi^,itie,tals ^n; order' to purge, a way *' the drofs." And hovve\<er the Author to the IJehrews fpeaks of diverfe wajhin^s-^- he woulJ» iij^rce^ from thence infer, ^ in the face of all this pqfilfive evidence to the contrary, that Chriiiian Bajptifm is, to, be admjniftered as well by'Tprinlc- Ling^ as im^ieicf^on,: but wouM natura%. .enough fuppofe (not, ta fay how improper it- ilto fpeak: of fprinkling as a mode of wafhing) that the di- verfity there fpoken of might refer to the various forts of perfons baptized,, and the various ••pwr* pofcs of their feveral Baptifms, viz^ fcf cbnfc- cration, purificatioji,, &c. in which fenfe of the text he . v/ou 1 d fi nd fpme _ ofi ( the^ , moft .torned Commentators agreeing with him. — And thus, finding the difncukies in- the way of his inquiries much lefs confiderable jthaii he. might perhaps at fetting out have expe6^ed, he would have the plcafure of feeing thelfenfe, in whith, with the concurrent opinion of 'the" ableft Critics and Di- vines, he had underftood the word Baptize , that fenfe, I fay, confirmed by the plaineft hiftorical fa(Sls, and the mo'fl: natural fcriptural allufions.
But, however fatisfad^ory all this evidence might be to an honeft inquirer, there is yet one obje£lion which ^ would bd apt to have fome weight with him: " If the matter be thus clear, how came fo grofs a corruption of a plain
pofitive
Conchificn. 14^
pofitiye inftltutlon to have fo generally detained in the Chriftian world?" Now I acknowledge, Sir. if we coul.d give no probable account of the origin of fprinkling or pouring w^ater in Baptifm, nnd if it could be proved tJbat this practice gene* rally prevailed in a very earJy age of the church; it would be pretty extraordinary, and a thought- ful perfon would.perceive.the importance of-rei viewing the Scripture again and again upon th6 matter, left he pdfTibly might have been miftaken in his reafonings. But even thefe facts would not have weight enough in them to induce hirn to give up the point, or td withhold his endea- vours to promote a reforniation ; fmce the Bible alone is the reUgion of Proteftants, and the'-na- ture, mode, and intent of a poficive inHitution-, are only to be colle<Sled from thofs authentick records of the will of Chrrft'the great Legiflator. JBut, in the prefent cafe, it happens quite other-- ,wife. We can give a. probable account of the origin of this corrupt pr^(Slice ; and can alfo prove that it did not generally prevail in the early ages of the church ; nay that it can fcarce be faid, taking the whole Chriftian church into view, that it generally prevaijs even at the prefent time.
The fource from whence this abufe originated I take to have been this. 'Baptifm camd very early to be confidered as ab!<)lutely necefTary to falvation. This error arofe, I cor?je6lure,. from
fa mif-
144 CotJcluJlGK.
a miftaken Interpretation of thofe words of our Saviour *, Except a ma?i be horti of waier^ and of the Spirit^ he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, TheClinici, therefore, that is, perfons confined to their beds by ficknefs, not being in circum- ftances capable of receiving Baptifm by immer- fion, rather than pafs out of life without fub* niitting to a rite of fuch importance, received this fuppofititious kind of Baptifm by fprinkling or pouring of water. But, as this departure from the original mode of baptizing was only admit- ted in extraordinary cafes, as appears by an flpiftle of Cyprian to Magnus f ; fo it was at that time doubted, whether thofe who were faid -to be baptized this way might be accounted Chriftians. This is plain from the following paflage in the Epiftle jufi: referred to: Ton ajky my deareji fon^ what is my opi?iion rcfpe^iing thofe ivho are baptized while languijlnng under bodily dif- tempers^ whether they are to be deemed true Chrijiians^ fmce they have not been wajhed with the falutary water ^ but have only had it poured upon them %, So that in this paflage, and many others that might be
* John iii. 5.
f Ncceflitate iirgente in aegrltudine baplizitl, &r. Cyprian. Epifl. 69. ad Magnum.
J Qvj^oefiftl etiam, fili charifTime, quid mihi de illis vi- deatur qui in Infirniitate & languore giatiam Dei con!e- quuntur, an h;;bendi fint legitimi Chriftianl. eo quod aqua fiiiatari non loti fint, it'\ peifuli* Cyprian, ibid,
1 cited
Conclufion. 145-
cited from the early Fathers of the church, it is clear that immerfion was the ordinary mode of baptizing for three or four centuries after Chrift. And though it might naturally be expeded that afperfion, introduced in the manner you hav?j feen, and with all the advantages of eafe and in- dulgence to recommend it, would quickly gain ground in the world j yet it was a long while before it became fo general as at the prefent time. Of this. Sir, withont entering into a farther de- tail of the hiftory of Baptifm, you will be fuf- ficiently convinced, by reflccSting a moment upon two refpedlable authorities already rcfer'd to : the one a Romifli Prelate, and the other a Proteftant Divine of this country. The former, I mean the Bifliop of Meaux, and Preceptor to the French King, fays *, We are able to inake it appear by the a^s of councils^ and by the ancient ri- tuals^ that for 1 300 years Baptifm zvas thus admi^ nijiered (that is, by immerfion) throughout the whole churchy as far as was poffille. And the lat- ter, the learned Dr. Whitby f, allures us, that immerfion was religioufiy obferved by all Chrijlians- for thiriee?i centuries. In this country, you are fenfible, it was pra^tifed till the beginning of the laft century ; and that it is ftill enjoined by the Rubrick of the Church of England, which orders the child to be dipped difcrcetly and warily.
* Le Traite de MefTire J. B. Bofluet de la communion fous les deux efpeces, Partie II. § i,
•f Comment, Rom, vi. 4-.
H And^
146 Conchfion,
And, if we extend our views to the whole Chrif- tian church, it may perhaps be affirmed that im- merHan prevails, even at the prefcnt time, more generally than afperfio^n. For Dr. Johr^ Glen
King tells us, that // ;*; uniformly pr a £f if ed in the
Greek church *; which church, he in another
place afiures us, has a greater extent sf territory than the Latin, with all the branches which arc fprung from it f.
Thus have I laid before you, my dear Sir, the fum of the argument in favour of Baptifmal Jmmerfion. And, as 1 am well perfuaded you feel the force of it, fo you will readily agree with me in vvifiiing, that a more general attention v/ere paid to a very fenfible obfervation of Arch- bilhop Tillotfon J, and the feafonable advice he grounds upon it j with which I fhall take my leave of you. In procefs of time, fays he, the heft injlitutions are apt to decline, and by infenjtbh degrees to fweyve, and depart from the p^rfe^iion. of their frj] flate \ and therefore it is a good rule, to preferve things from corruption and degeneracy, often to look back to the firjl injlitation, and by that to cor^ r<£l ihofe imperfeSiions and errors whieh will almofi unavoidably creep in with time, I am, dear Sir,
Your aifeclioiiate Friend, and humble Servant^
Samuel Stennett.
* King^s Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Cliurch:i p. ,51. 1 p. 3,
^ Vol, II. p. 170, edit* f©l.
L/itely ptibli/lied by the fame Author^ A New Edition, in Two Volumes Duodecimo^
Discourses on Personal Religion.
Printed for J. Buckland, in Pater-nofter-Row ; G. Keith, in Gracechurch-Street ; W. Harris, in St. Paul's Church-Yard ; W. Brown, the Corner of Ellex-Street, Strand; and R. Biihop, near Leicefler- Fields.
Where msiy be had,
A few remaining Copies of the former Edition in Oftavo, and feveral Sermons, by the fam^ Author*, on publick Occafions.